Originally posted by: ectophile
It strikes me that there's a more fundamental problem with the definition.
If your income is so low that you can't even afford to spend the "typical" amount on energy, then you can't be fuel poor.
But without a proper definition of "typical", the whole thing is pretty well meaningless.
Yes I completely agree. Spending more than "typical" on energy bills will be very hard for the poorest.
Besides not having a proper definition in the above sense, the word "typical" is also referentially vague.
It could be mean "typical of the fuel poor" in which case it is a recursive definition or it could mean "typical" of the population as a whole, in which case it is useless as a definition.
If the meaning is "typical" of the population in a particular locality, then it would be possible that the highest energy users in a ghetto, might just qualify as fuel poor, by choosing to heat their house instead of eat or pay the rent.