In American ideology, the individual reigns supreme. 43 The historian Frederick Jackson Turner proposed that the westward expansion and frontier experience of the nineteenth century was a major force in shaping this aspect of our national character. He wrote, “That restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and for evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with freedom—these are traits of the frontier.” 44 Indeed, from a very early age, selfhood and independence are stressed. Children learn they must stand on their own two feet in a competitive world where self-reliance and self-realization are the name of the game. The expression “self-made” man or woman expresses that American ideal perfectly. It is not surprising then that in comparison to many other cultures, we are more tolerant of individual differences, idiosyncracies, and non-conformity. 45 Although attitudes towards conformity have not been fixed historically and have changed over time, in general, Americans seem to dread the idea of being, acting, and looking just like their neighbors.     

      Indeed, Americans have ambivalent feelings about neighbors. This ambivalence reflects the tension we feel over our loyalties to group and to self and which of the two takes precedence. In other cultures, the group clearly takes precedence. However, in the United States, we draw boundaries around individuals and circumscribe their “space.” 46 It is a concept that many foreigners find odd, even offensive. But again, it is the individual that is valued over the group, whether that group is a family, corporation, or community.

       Fuel poverty occurs when a household is unable to afford the most basic amount of energy foradequate heating, cooking, lighting, and use of appliances in the home. According to European UniversityInstitute, in 2011, 9.8% of households in the EU27 countries and 15.8% of households in the 12 newmember states could not afford to heat their homes adequately. Thus, fuel poverty is an increasingly seriousproblem across Europe and requires the intervention of policymakers.

       In particular, corrective measures have been implemented which aim to help fuel-poor householdspay their energy bills, and preventive policies have also been introduced, which focus more on improvingresidential energy efficiency. Debates about the effectiveness of these measures have ensued for severalreasons; mainly because energy retrofit renovations have often been undertaken by wealthier households.Thus, despite these measures, given the expected increase in the cost of energy, some could find it difficultor even impossible to satisfy their energy needs. As a prerequisite to discussions about the effectivenessof different measures to fight fuel poverty, debates have often focused on the need to reliably identify fuel-poor households and create a detailed profile of such households. In fact, the multidimensionality of fuelpoverty makes it difficult to achieve this.

       Fuel poverty has traditionally been treated as a monetary poverty problem. At European Union level,there is no common definition or standardized indicator for assessing fuel poverty. While there is a largebody of literature on measuring poverty, consensus has not yet been reached on the related methodologicaland conceptual issues. However, households affected by fuel poverty are not always the same as thoseaffected by monetary problems, even if the two phenomena are inextricably linked.

       In this context, we suggest that a more careful and systematic understanding can be developedthrough a multidimensional approach to the relationship between monetary poverty, residential energyefficiency of buildings, and heating restrictions. Our objective in this paper is not to challenge existingmeasures of fuel poverty, but provide new ways to better identify those who suffer the most from fuelpoverty in order to optimize policy. We argue this is needed to better identify the connection betweenenergy use and well-being and therefore deepen understanding of energy poverty.