House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Association for the Conservation of Energy

INTRODUCTION

The Association for the Conservation of Energy is a lobbying, campaigning and policy research organisation, and has worked in the field of energy efficiency since 1981. Our lobbying and campaigning work represents the interests of our membership: major manufacturers and distributors of energy saving equipment in the United Kingdom. Our policy research is funded independently, and is focused on four key themes: policies and programmes to encourage increased energy efficiency; the environmental benefits of increased energy efficiency; the social impacts of energy use and of investment in energy efficiency measures; and organisational roles in the process of implementing energy efficiency policy.

ACE believes that local, regional and devolved governments have a crucial role in tackling climate change but barriers to change need to be dismantled and incentives increased to help these bodies bring about the fundamental shift needed to move to low carbon communities.

ACE contributed to the first two key stakeholders' workshops on the Performance Indicators on Climate Change organised by Defra.

During the campaign to improve the DCLG "Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change" ACE set up an informal campaign and information network for local authorities active on renewable energy and energy efficiency issues. Such a non-party group could impress upon government the changes needed to national policy: indeed a minister told ACE very recently that such a network would be welcomed by her to help inform policy making.

SUMMARY

The government must provide a stable policy and financial regime for local authorities to act effectively and over time.

The government should support the Planning and Energy Bill, promoted by Michael Fallon MP, which gives local councils the ability in law to set higher green standards in new local buildings than are currently required under Building Regulations. This should reassure councils that they would not be subject to repeated government U-turns on this issue.

The new performance regime for local authorities in England contains performance indicators designed to influence councils to cut carbon emissions in the council's own buildings, in the community, and to improve the energy efficiency of households living in fuel poverty. The practical things the government could do regarding local authorities to make these carbon and fuel poverty indicators work:

OWN ESTATE

There needs to be a rise in consultancy advice support from the Carbon Trust from the present 20 councils a year, or a pot of money to employ private sector consultants. In addition there must be far greater guaranteed financial support for local councils from the Salix Fund.

IN THE COMMUNITY

To implement the PPS Climate Change, the government must provide additional funding for planning departments to employ skilled staff or consultants with knowledge of sustainable energy systems—to enable councils to develop viable plans and negotiate with private developers on cutting emissions in new development.

The government to force an agreement on EST on the amount of advice and support it gives local authorities with regard to improving energy efficiency in homes—EST cut this when they lost the VAT issue.

The government should hold the ring on some kind of formalised agreement or standard contract between the energy suppliers and the local authorities with regard to CERT action in localities—this is particularly important with regards to reaching the Priority Group.

Government to implement as soon as possible Article 7 of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, which requires all public buildings over 1000 square metres to display an energy performance certificate. This must, in the correct interpretation of the Directive, be extended to all buildings used by the public (ie not just public sector buildings).

Councils will need to be empowered by the government to collect Energy Performance Certificate data on individual dwellings to build up hard information on a property by property basis which will be useful for targeting. At present they can collect this data purely for "trading standards" purposes.

The government should abandon its attempt to repeal the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 and instead use its provisions to bolster the new performance indicators.

1. How can central government best support and encourage local authorities, regional government and devolved administrations to take action on mitigation and adaptation, and other climate change related areas like waste and transport? What funding, powers, and structures are required to improve joined up delivery of climate change policy at all levels of government?

The question the Committee could ask the government is how far are you willing to go to work with local authorities to achieve significant carbon savings? Are you willing to provide a stable policy and financial regime for local authorities to act effectively and over time?

Unfortunately, the government has "form" on playing fast and loose with local government on sustainable energy matters, and this lack of consistency smacks of a general contempt by UK government for local government. For example, in the Budget 2006, local authorities were promised £20 million over the ensuing two years to promote energy efficiency in local housing. This amount was considerably reduced in a one-off grant programme where projects had to be set up and spend their grant money all within a year!

One of the examples of central government flip-flopping is the "Merton Rule", which the ODPM originally opposed, then supported, then copied into the Planning Policy 22 to encourage other local planning authorities to follow suit. However, during the drafting of the Planning Policy Statement on Climate Change, the first draft supported the Merton Rule, the second essentially hamstrung it, while the third and final version produced something like the Rule. This is no way to encourage councils to take action. The government could support the Planning and Energy Bill, promoted by Michael Fallon MP, which gives local councils the ability in law to set higher green standards in new local buildings than are currently required under Building Regulations. This should reassure councils that they would not be subject to repeated government u-turns on this issue.

Another example is the government support for the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995[56] and related legislation, supported by ACE and passed with all-party agreement. Defra has allowed HECA, the only legislation-backed policy on climate change mitigation that concerns local government to "wither on the vine". This is despite EST showing it to be by far the most effective energy saving programme pre-EEC.[57]

Defra seem to have little interest in enforcing HECA: they have not effectively pursued those who do not submit reports in time,[58] nor published any figures until well over a year late, and seem unbothered about the accuracy[59] of returns.[60] It is ironic in the fact that if HECA were started now, it would logically begin precisely with asking each council to set out a policy on how to reduce domestic energy consumption across a 10 or 15 year period.[61]

There is also the sorry list of government agencies such as the Energy Saving Trust (EST), setting up and abandoning successful local government programmes and pilots for budgetary reasons.

With the growing importance of sustainable development issues the policy emphasis must genuinely be on the leading role that local communities have in managing their environment. The government must empower local communities—through their elected representatives—to make the decisions that are right for their new developments and give local people a sense of shared responsibility for eco-friendly developments in their communities.

So, first, central government needs to provide a higher degree of continuity to its attitude and policy with regard to local government. In November 2002 the LGA published a research briefing called Climate Change: a survey of local authorities.[62] The authors of the report wrote:

precisely the opportunity sorely missed under HECA to date

Since then the government has published its new Performance Indicators for local authorities in England. Councils, if they take action on these climate change indicators (and there is no requirement to do so, unless in a Local Area Agreement), need to decide what to prioritise if their objective is to maximise the amount of carbon saved. Lacking much knowledge of energy usage in buildings, most will need help with this process and extra resources from external sources as support.

Councils need to be advised as to what action they can take. There is a lack of audited or even reported energy savings in case studies collected by Practical Help and other agencies. This needs to be improved and Defra, as the main funder of the Energy Saving trust (EST), should require this information to be produced.

Specific government support in terms of reformed government policy is required to create more energy service companies (ESCOs) and decentralised energy systems: a government report is expected. Hopefully, the practical reasons why district or distributed energy thrives in other countries such as Denmark—but not in the UK—will feed through into changes in legislation and regulation.

Councils will need to be empowered by the government to collect Energy Performance Certificate data on individual dwellings to build up hard information on an estate by estate (and eventually property by property basis) which will be useful for targeting. At present they can collect this data purely for "trading standards" purposes.

There will be indicators on carbon emission savings to be included in the new council performance regime in England from April 2008. If these were backed by adequate extra resources it would show that central government was serious in its ambitions for action by local authorities on cutting emissions of carbon. The issue then will be—will the councils have enough resources to make a difference?

An incentive for central government could be the targets below which the government has committed itself to and could be made easier to achieve if the government was committed to working seriously with local authorities:

residential accommodation

commercial and public services sectors

renewable sources

combined heat and power

References will be made to these targets that could potentially be included in the pending Climate Change Bill, throughout the document.

Energy suppliers should work more closely with councils and their agents to provide EEC/CERT resources to householders willing to improve their properties. The government may need to hold the ring on some kind of formalised agreement or standard contract between the energy suppliers and the local authorities with regard to EEC/CERT investment—particularly the Priority Group. Unfortunately, the anarchy of the short-term arrangements of the moment has not proved durable and it is in the interests of all parties to get things sorted for CERT and beyond.

2. Is there clarity about the role played by local authorities, regional governments and devolved administrations in tackling climate change? How can their actions be coordinated and monitored? How can the accountability and transparency of the response at a local level be improved? How effective has the Nottingham Declaration process been?

There are few examples of current legislation driving council action on climate change mitigation. These include:

The 1995 Home Energy Conservation Act (HECA) provided new duties and responsibilities for all local authorities with regard to energy conservation in all residential accommodation, making them energy conservation authorities that had to implement a home energy efficiency strategy. See the annexes for various examples of HECA action. Defra now want to repeal HECA.

In 2000, the government required local authorities to produce another linked strategy aimed at assisting those private householders who had particular difficulty in maintaining adequate warmth in their homes in winter due to a combination of low income, poor insulation, or inefficient heating. In response, councils created a Fuel Poverty strategy to address this aspect of energy conservation. The key strategy elements commonly identified included the need to "develop appropriate partnerships with other organisations to contribute towards the achievement of affordable warmth", and to "target energy advice to the most vulnerable members of the local community".[63] The government has admitted that it is likely to fail its 2010 fuel poverty target. It needs to rethink the role for local government (beyond the performance indicator) and resources required to help reach the target. Defra has done nothing with respect to the local reports on fuel poverty which have been statutorily submitted with HECA returns since 2000—again an opportunity perpetually missed. The Association for the Conservation of Energy, funded by Eaga Partnership Charitable Trust, published the only "Review of English Local Authority Fuel Poverty Reports and Strategies" in 2003,[64] based on these reports. Defra should have carried this out itself, and used the information to good effect, as for example ACE has done with the Local Authority Self Assessment tool,[65] also published in 2003.

Local authorities liable for the government's mandatory Carbon Reduction Commitment scheme (CRC) should have the money recirculated to them in the form of grants for specific projects, rather than a cheque without strings.

It is essential that the differences in resources (especially with regard to housing) are recognised between councils, the extremes being metropolitan unitary councils with concentrated levels of deprivation which receive the lion's share of government housing money versus small rural district councils, with widely dispersed individual households in fuel poverty, which receive very little.

It is important that the government does not exaggerate the size of the resources available to local authorities (LAs) from the energy suppliers for energy efficiency (EEC/CERT) and from Eaga Warm Front. For the sake of efficiency the energy suppliers prefer to deal with large councils or social landlords and usually only provide a very small part of the total finance in any social housing renovation scheme. With Eaga Warm Front, cooperation largely consists of exchanges of useful information.

3. What, if anything, needs to be changed in the framework governing the actions of devolved administrations, regional government and local authorities? For example, does there need to be a more explicit reference to climate change in the local government performance framework and will the new performance indicators on climate change be enough to stimulate action?

ACE supports these indicators. The question is, will the government follow through with enough resources, support and enforcement to make a success of these indicators?

HECA was widely adhered to early on, and taken very seriously by a significant number of councils. Financial support through the HECAction programme was provided, and then axed in favour of the Innovation Fund, and that was in turn axed when money became tight at Defra after the foot and mouth emergency.

So, while ACE agrees that inclusion of these indicators in the local government performance framework is essential if more authorities are to give carbon saving the commitment required, it acknowledges that without continuing support from the centre many councils will simply drop them as too hard, and concentrate on the other 195 indicators in subjects they are familiar with.

Nobody wants to add unnecessarily to the burdens of local government, however, one addition to make councils take the climate change indicators seriously—as a driver of significant value and consideration—should be for central government to make their inclusion mandatory in all Local Area Agreements. The same should also be considered for the Fuel Poverty Indicator.

Instead of trying to repeal HECA, it would also help if Defra actively reminded councils of their current obligations under HECA and for tackling fuel poverty, warning them about the proposed Performance Indicators and showing them the advantages of taking action before these are introduced.

The rating and bold public display of energy certificates on public buildings and buildings regularly accessed by the public, when combined with engaging communication strategies and events, are an excellent means of raising awareness and demonstrate how residential energy users can make a difference. This is particularly true in schools, where students can see improvements to their own building, make changes in their own behaviour, and take these lessons home to influence energy used in the household. Following on from the success of the Display Campaign,[66] we would urge the government to implement as soon as possible Article 7 of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, which requires all public buildings over 1000 square metres to display an energy performance certificate. Furthermore, as implied above, we want to see a proper interpretation of the Directive to cover not just publicly owned buildings, but all buildings visited by the public, eg theatres, supermarkets, banks, sports facilities, etc.

Councils as a Social Housing Providers—Upgrade the Decent Homes Standard

More serious attention should be paid by the government to the thermal requirements set out in the Decent Homes Standard for Social Housing when they are next revised. This is necessary in order to ensure that the government meets its legal duty to alleviate fuel poverty and will also mean further reductions in carbon emissions from the domestic sector. However, councils whose tenants vote to stay under council control should not be penalised in borrowing or rent terms as at present.

Social housing is at such a crisis point in terms of lack of availability that it needs a revival of council house building—and hints that the government is considering substantially increasing investment in this are very welcome. Under current policy, theses homes would be built to Code for Sustainable Homes 3 Star rating, which is a considerable improvement on current Building Regulations.

7. What are the barriers to greater local or regional action? Do the different levels of government have sufficient powers to take action? What changes in policy are needed to support action at a local level? What policies are working well?

The barriers to the take-up of cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities for LAs in their own estates are the same as for other large organisations:

— the small proportion that energy costs take of total costs means that they are overlooked;

— energy costs are often spread over several budget headings or hidden in premises costs;

— the financial costs of implementing changes to procedures and energy sources;

— organisations tend to perceive environmental measures as separate to their main objectives; and

— the difficulties of engaging and mobilising employees into taking action.

In the 2002 LGA survey nearly four-fifths of councils said that insufficient staff or staff time is the major barrier to them making progress on climate change issues, and nearly as many (71%) mentioned "other priorities taking higher priority in the council", and the third most significant barrier cited by more than half of all councils was "lack of funding".

The best way of making councils take action is for government to require them to achieve specific targets on their performance indicator on carbon emissions (see response to Question 1). This should be followed by adequate resources to enable councils to tackle this new task (see answer to question 10).

Several councils are taking action by seeking to set energy efficiency targets for new residential buildings in their emerging spatial strategies. However, CLG has changed its planning policies recently to expressly restrict this (see PPS Climate Change).

Defra's plans to repeal HECA are mentioned elsewhere in this document.

The biggest barriers to some renewable technologies is the planning system, and there is a substantial gap between the varying high level policies of sustainability adopted by local authorities and the everyday decisions made by their planning departments and councillors. There is a lack of understanding of the rapidly changing technology of renewable energy or the increased need for energy efficiency and sustainable energy in buildings.

In the recent past, around 30% of renewable planning applications were refused. This is worse in some key technologies: 60% of wind farms are refused and biomass projects have particular problems obtaining permission (Cabinet Office Policy and Innovation Unit figures for 2000). Even humble domestic solar installations can fall foul of the system; installers say that some councils insist on the requirement of planning permission, even when this is not really necessary as the installation should be permitted development. According to Southern Solar, a leading installer of solar thermal in the South East, around 20% of householders give up the idea of installing solar when faced with the effort and cost of a planning application.

The government has declared that it will shortly publish its Permitted Development guidelines for micro-generation technologies. The policy will hopefully solve the problem somewhat. However, some micro-generation technologies will end up in the planning system because they are planning matters that cannot be covered by permitted development rights. Some technologies can be intrusive (such as micro-wind turbines) while some, such as solar panels, can change the appearance of a building. Or it may be that the application is so large that it is disputable how "micro" an installation really is.

In addition, permitted development rights are to a certain degree in abeyance in Conservation Areas, which cover a surprising large part of urban Britain. These areas, with their varying and subjective standards on "visual impact" are a particular barrier to wind and solar technologies.

8. What impact will the new Planning Policy Statement on climate change have on emissions reductions and work on adaptation? How are the so called "Merton rules" affected? How might other planning guidance be changed to reduce emissions?

Readers of this document will be familiar with the background to the much delayed publication of the PPS; how campaigns had to be run to improve previous drafts, how energy efficiency standards were specifically singled out as beyond a planner's remit, to how the Merton Rule was threatened, and much beside. The question now is: is the PPS a help or a hindrance to producing low carbon development? The answer must be yes to the former overall, despite all its faults. The second question is: will the PPS achieve its objectives? The answer to that must be no, because CLG are quite glib about the resources needed by planners, developers and building material suppliers to satisfy the implications of the PPS.

One of the criticisms of the previous drafts of the PPS was that it made an ostentatious point of demanding that local planning authorities (LPAs) fully consider climate change in their spatial strategies but at the same time did not give them adequate powers to demand this from individual developments. To a degree this discrepancy is still there, but planners' powers over developers have been reinforced to a degree where development control officers and builders, if they knew what they were doing, could produce a satisfactory outcome in carbon emissions terms under certain (proscribed) circumstances.

The PPS repeats the recent decision by CLG to separate who controls what when it comes to imposing standards on buildings and their sites, that is, LPAs control spatial planning (subject to central government policy statements, Regional Plans and government inspectors; while central government controls Building Regulations (subject to enforcement by local authority Building Control inspectors). CLG seems to think this is clear and logical. However, in energy, or carbon emissions or even in building construction terms, it is nonsense. A designer works out the energy demand of a building, then minimises emissions through practical energy efficiency measures and supplies the rest of the energy demand from renewables or low-carbon sources. This view fits with the previous concept of planning that it should attempt, where possible and viable, to make buildings better than Building Regulations, which are a one-size-fits-all minimum standard. To a certain degree, the PPS goes back to this idea by allowing planners to specify an "energy standard" (energy efficiency is implied) higher than Building Regulations in certain circumstances. However, this is very restricted to certain tightly drawn geographical areas, has to be justified in local terms (not properly defined) and announced in a high-level document which has to pass the government inspector. In other words, the PPS makes it very difficult and unlikely that councils will succeed in achieving this as a policy.

The Merton Rule and the PPS

The PPS uses a version of the original "Merton Rule" but applies it to "decentralised energy" in general (see PPS glossary). CLG have watered down the Merton Rule because there is no guidance as to whether LPAs can still require a percentage of energy/carbon reduction to come from renewables.

In addition the PPS has used an energy-based target approach rather than an emissions target base which Merton has subsequently moved to, to discourage electric heating. However, it seems at last that LPAs can now apply the Rule all over their area, instead of a restricted part.

The uncertainty created by earlier drafts of the PPS has led to the worry that the supporting documents explaining the PPS may well still weaken the Merton Rule. ACE is therefore supporting Michael Fallon MP's Planning and Energy Bill which aims to allow councils to require a percentage of energy in all new developments to be generated by on-site renewables and to set higher energy efficiency standards.

This Bill will enshrine the Merton Rule in law, thus preventing it from being undermined in the future and provide the certainty that the industry needs in order to secure investment.

It will ensure that the decisions on standards are taken locally—but by using the term "reasonable" the Bill will also NOT allow councils to set unreasonable standards in order to frustrate government policy. Linking the standards to the Code will avoid the argument often advanced by the HBF (based upon no supplied evidence—despite 18 months of requests for such evidence) that a plethora of different standards will be used by LPAs up and down the country.

The Bill will also allow councils to set high reasonable energy efficiency standards)—an important issue that was not dealt with in the recent PPS.

Together these polices will help to reduce carbon emissions from new development.

CHP and district schemes

Very importantly for existing CHP systems, the PPS now apparently allows them to force a developer to include them in their existing scheme (paragraph 27). However, this is seriously undermined by a statement in paragraph 28 that plans do "not restrict those with responsibility for providing energy to new development, or the occupiers, to any one energy provider in perpetuity". While this appears like an anti-monopoly measure this is really a cop out. The large speculative property developers in the UK are very reluctant to join district CHP schemes and will use this to avoid compulsion. If the government is worried about district schemes exploiting their position it should regulate them. No one expects a choice of water utility and it should be the same with heat and power.

Energy Efficiency in the PPS

In the first draft of the PPS, LPAs were only allowed to specify an "energy standard" (energy efficiency is implied) higher than Building Regulations in certain circumstances. This was very restricted to certain tightly drawn geographical areas (site-specific major developments), had to be justified in local terms (not properly defined) the extra costs and possible effect on supply had to be considered (which the developer could challenge) and the policy had to be set out in a high-level document which has to pass the government inspector. In our view, the PPS is worded to ensure that it was very difficult and expensive for councils to succeed in achieving this as a policy.

Unfortunately, the final version of the PPS is only slightly better than previous versions. It still does not allow authorities the discretion to set blanket requirements for their area if it is deemed reasonable to do so. (After, of course, the usual development plan process.) Without this specific permission authorities will still face the prospect of blanket requirements being deleted by inspectors, because they are blanket. This is therefore a very different regime to one where a specific requirement relating to a specific development may be deleted by an inspector. In short the former (blanket with exceptions to be deleted) implies a presumption in favour of energy efficiency while the latter (blanket requirements not allowed) implies a presumption against energy efficiency.

In paragraphs 31 and 32 it says that LPAs are able to set a level of a "nationally described sustainable buildings standards" (such as the Code for Sustainable Homes) in specific developments under specific local circumstances, although it is very coy about mentioning the words "energy efficiency" which is mentioned as an "energy standard" in a footnote (number 26) to paragraph 32 which states: "Where planning authorities consider that local circumstances do not justify specifying a whole Code level they can stipulate a requirement solely in relation to the energy standard at an identified level of the Code". This is the only mention of energy efficiency in these circumstances, and there are no examples given of local circumstances where higher levels could be asked for.

A development area is defined in the PPS glossary as "part of a planning authority's area where development is anticipated, which could be an urban extension or town centre". So there has been a slight improvement on previous drafts, in that the area allowed is now bigger than a specific site, and a "local circumstances" policy could be tacked on to an area development plan document (such as a town centre redevelopment plan).

Consequential Improvements are missed out of the PPS

It is most disappointing that LPAs cannot use applications for major refurbishments or building extensions to make realistic demands that carbon emissions from the rest of the site are lowered, by the existing buildings being brought up to higher energy efficiency standard and or by the addition of microgeneration (Consequential Improvements). There is a very odd sentence in paragraph 25: "Where areas and sites perform poorly, planning authorities should consider whether their performance could be improved". But there is no power anywhere given to enable the LPA to impose changes on existing sites, except by incremental additions of new development. This all seems like a major missed opportunity by CLG as the vast majority of planning applications are for extensions and alterations. The previous housing minister infamously pulled Consequential Improvements from the last Building Regulations update, so it cannot be claimed that this is covered by Building Regulations.

LPAs banned from specifying low-carbon building materials

As in previous drafts, there is a complete ban on local requirements for sustainable buildings with regards to construction materials, fixtures and fittings. This clause (in paragraphs 32 and also 45) stops councils specifying use of sustainable timber and banning energy-intensive materials such as aluminium. It is clearly a concession to the major developers.

"Testing local requirements"

Previously, LPAs have tended to put renewables policies such as the Merton Rule in Supplementary Planning Documents. This is a quicker and easier process than adopting higher-level documents and does not need the approval of the government inspector. This has to stop, according to the PPS. Paragraph 33 states that:

"Any policy relating to local requirements for decentralised energy supply to new development or for sustainable buildings should be set out in a DPD [a higher-level document], not a supplementary planning document, so as to ensure examination by an independent inspector".

CLG should announce that current Supplementary Planning Documents concerning sustainable energy are valid until replaced eventually by a DPD.

9. Are local authorities meeting their duty to enforce building regulations in relation to environmental measures? Does the enforcement regime discourage non-compliance?

Delivery of Article 4 of the EU Directive on energy performance of buildings in the UK is mainly through revised Building Regulations (April 2006). However, there is evidence that building control is not enforcing the relevant parts of the regulations and irresponsible builders have been able to get away with flouting minimum energy and emission standards. Surveys have shown that 1 in 2 new houses currently fail to meet the current Part L standards.[67]

ACE has received anecdotal evidence, in confidence, that competition in the provision of building control services has effectively corrupted the system of enforcement. For some time in England, and since this year in Scotland, council building control inspectors compete with commercial "independent" Approved Inspectors to sign off new buildings. It has been put to us that if an inspector proves "obstructive" to a developer (eg insists on full compliance, including Part L); on the next development the builder will employ a "tame" professional to sign off his buildings for compliance. This is perfectly legal, and apparently how most large builders operate. Contrast this with Scotland where until this year local authority Building Control had a monopoly for checking, and where there are far fewer concerns about compliance.

Along with a reform of building control services there needs to be random pressure testing for new homes, which would act as a powerful deterrent to rogue builders who are otherwise cutting corners. It is important that pressure testing of new dwellings is sufficiently frequent to make builders believe that there is a real chance that their building will be tested. This measure was proposed by the government in the Building Regulations Consultation Paper[68] and we warmly endorse it.

10. What good practice is there to be shared? How is best practice shared and does central government support for sharing best practice work? What role should UK Climate Impacts Programme, IDeA, Salix Finance, the Carbon Trust and Energy Savings Trust play in providing support?

These are the resource-efficient methods that councils can use to save energy and carbon emissions:

Energy Efficiency in the community

The Home Energy Conservation Act requires local authorities to set up plans to move towards a 30% improvement in the energy efficiency of all the housing stock in their area across a 15-year period and that 15-year period concludes in the year 2010. A significant number of councils have already achieved the target or will do soon, but an even larger number are seriously behind, and two have never reported their figures. Despite these problem councils, the returns which have to be made each year do demonstrate very clearly that those local authorities that are prepared to show commitment can actually deliver on this.

Around the country there are all sorts of very good HECA-related projects linked to councils happening on the ground, which are delivering carbon savings. EST and the Practical Help website list many of these. A few are featured in the annex in the form of case studies.

The government has the target that by 2020 the general level of energy efficiency of residential accommodation has been increased by at least 20% compared with the general level of such energy efficiency in 2010.

While the Energy Efficiency Commitment has been very successful in terms of reaching the given targets, we are some way to go before every home in the UK is treated to make it warm and cheaper to heat. Even amongst the eligible householders, reach has been patchy because of the proliferation of short-lived special offers and marketing schemes from the energy suppliers.[69] There is also the credibility barrier—many householders cannot believe that a utility which exists to make profits out of selling units of electricity or gas would actually subsidise energy-saving measures that cut fuel bills.

In contrast to the energy suppliers, surveys have shown that written statements from local authorities are considered to be more trustworthy and official letters are read. For this reason, joint promotion schemes of EEC installations have been very successful.

One promotion has been of a Council Tax reduction for householders installing energy-saving measures. This measure has attracted widespread support—including from many local authorities. With support from EST's Innovation programme, Fenland District Council is offering council tax rebates to households that install energy efficiency measures. In other places British Gas is offering to split the cost of the rebate with councils as part of its EEC promotion.

The government has announced that there will be a doubling of CERT (2008-11) over EEC-2 (2005-08), and a corresponding increase in the (hard-to-reach) Priority Group. The energy suppliers do not underestimate the difficulties of reaching these targets. An alliance with each local authority may be the only way forward.

HECA and non-domestic buildings

The government has the target that by the end of 2010 the general level of energy usage in the commercial and public services sectors has reduced by at least 10% compared with the general level of such energy usage in 2005 and by the end of 2020 by at least 10% compared with the general level of such energy usage in 2010. There is currently a vacancy in the role regarding coordinating local energy saving in commercial buildings. ACE suggests widening HECA to cover energy use in all buildings in the area.

Area-based approach

Schemes organised for a specific geographical area—like Warm Zones—could be the answer. These schemes can combine the credibility of the council, with the money of the energy supplier (plus possibly any state housing renovation money), plus the word of mouth endorsement of the community, and the local knowledge of the installers and community groups. Different contact methods, including door to door visits, can be used and needy individuals can be helped to obtain resources from third parties (state benefits and access to programmes such as Warm Front) which, with insulation measures, can help move them out of fuel poverty.

Powergen's "Heat Streets" scheme promotes energy advice and the installation of energy conservation measures in private sector housing in geographical target areas. Typically these are older dwellings with high numbers of low income households or areas with more modern housing but poor energy efficiency standards with a reasonable number of low income households. The "Heat Streets" initiative has been piloted in at least three local authority areas.

Another example of an area-based approach is Cornwall's Healthy Homes which is featured in the annex.

Energy Performance Certificates in domestic properties

The introduction of Energy Performance Certificates provides an opportunity for councils to use this information to provide advice to householders on agencies that can offer energy saving measures. They could also use the information to pinpoint or target where work is needed. It is absolutely vital for co-ordination with energy companies to find suitable homes to receive EEC/CERT measures.

Much has been made about problems of data security. This shows a lack of understanding of the Data Protection Act, which is about the security of data kept on people. The Energy Performance Certificates refer only to individual properties.

ESCOs based on utilities

Ultimately, if the government will enforce energy savings from the utilities using "cap and trade", the energy suppliers should move to being ESCOs (energy services companies) in alliance with councils, and providing for each household levels of warmth and ability to power an agreed number of appliances. Unlike today, where a customer is just a number on a computer file, and the relationship purely transactional, ESCOs, to provide their services adequately, will have to know their customers, their lifestyles and the state of their property. It will be cheaper for the ESCO, after a certain point, to avoid expensive investment in increasing energy generation by helping their customers reduce demand. This has happened in California where utilities have provided low-cost solar panels for customers at the edge of their distribution network, rather than build a new power station. An example of an ESCO produced in alliance with local government is the London ESCO contract, won by EDF and backed by the London Mayor.

Town Planning and Development Control

Several advanced local planning authorities[70] have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, a Supplementary Planning Document containing guidance on renewable energy (either as a stand-alone policy or as part of a wider sustainability SPD) to help them make planning decisions and to advise householders and businesses on what is accepted and why. Several councils are attempting to set carbon emission limits for new development. Unfortunately, recent pronouncements by CLG ministers and their inspectors responding to individual draft spatial plans show the government intends to restrict this.

The Planning Policy Statement and Code for Sustainable Homes have major implications for Planning Departments on both the policy and development control sides. However, according to ministers, councils will receive no new money or powers (that could be used to raise revenues).[71] Within the next eight years, the government's intention is to make sure that every single new home is a zero-carbon home, but unless more resources go into hard-pressed Planning and Building Control departments, then it is going to be very difficult to see how that is going to be achieved.

There is a recognised problem of a widespread lack of knowledge or experience in planning departments in handling the new technology of renewable energy or the subject of energy efficiency. Unfortunately, resources are often lacking (especially in small district councils) to develop knowledge and policies in these fields. There have been attempts by outsiders to help the planners. The best example is the DTI's "Its Only Natural" programme which aims to educate planners and councillors on the technology of renewables through a website and seminars around the country. Various other pieces of work are going on, supported by the regional bodies and local energy agencies. This is probably inadequate and too patchy for the task. government ministers have asked why more local planning authorities have not adopted Planning Policy Statement 22 (on-site renewables in new development) as a local planning requirement. The answer is: the LPAs do not know enough about renewable energy—indeed any energy—to properly enforce the policy. Therefore they avoid it.

As an employer

Councils are major employers in their local area. Councils can also influence contractors' workforces. Low-cost education schemes on saving energy not only help corporate bills, but there is some evidence that the employees use the techniques in their own homes.

Own estate

The rating and bold public display of energy certificates on public buildings and buildings regularly accessed by the public, when combined with engaging communication strategies and events, are an excellent means to raise awareness and demonstrate how residential energy users can make a difference. This is particularly true in schools, where students can see improvements to their own building, make changes in their own behaviour, and take these lessons home to influence energy used in the household. The European DisplayTM Campaign is a voluntary scheme designed by energy experts from 20 European towns and cities and supported by ACE's research department. It is aimed at encouraging local authorities to publicly display the energy and environmental performances of their public buildings using the same energy label (additionally covering carbon emissions and water use) that is used for household appliances. Across Europe to date, 303 local authorities have labelled 7,051 buildings under the Campaign.

Back in 2002, the Councils for Climate Protection pilot (CCP)—led by the IDeA—provided specialist software linked to training and support which enabled the pilot councils to build up inventories of CO2 emissions for their own in-house activities and their areas, to consider different future scenarios and to develop programmes of action to cut emissions. IDeA still advises councils and runs the Beacon Council scheme on Sustainable Energy (2005-06) and Climate Change (2007-08).[72] The influence of this scheme has been fairly limited in terms of action taken by non-Beacon councils, but this may increase if councils are required to take climate change seriously through a performance indicator or similar.

When presented with a funding crisis following the tax ruling last year, EST, following the pattern of many organisations, axed external programmes which involved few core staff. This included the Local Authority Support Programme, whose pilots had been running for several years, based in several independent Energy Efficiency Advice Centres. The role of the programme was to advise LAs on assisting householders to reduce their consumption of energy—usually through setting up joint projects. As EST has been given responsibility by central government to persuade householders to reduce their consumption of energy, this programme should be restored.

The Carbon Trust low carbon advice programme is very limited in the sense that it only takes in about a dozen councils a year. The Carbon Trust Salix fund for councils making energy efficiency improvements is also very limited (currently worth only around £20m) and needs to be drastically expanded to help the 400 plus councils.

As a driver to seriously tackle energy costs, all local authorities (above tertiary level) should be included in the mandatory Carbon Reduction Commitment scheme (CRC), so such authorities are taking an exemplar role. Only a minority of over 400 local authorities are estimated to meet the criteria to enter the CRC scheme as described in the recent Defra consultation document. ACE wants all local authorities, including many of the smaller ones that have been exemplars in energy efficiency, included, as an example to others and to, ultimately, save public money through energy efficiency. Councils are severely restricted on capital and expenditure, and so may have the only option of paying up for the carbon with a cut of their services to balance the books, so the monies received should be recirculated in the form of grants to fund improvements.

Many local authorities have already been taking the "monitor and manage" approach to energy use, and should be rewarded for taking this initiative, for example, via compensation for occupying only the top quartile efficient buildings (as apparently is central government's objective).

Council Tax reduction for householders installing energy-saving measures

This measure has attracted widespread support as an EEC promotion. There is also merit in considering a variety of Council Tax mechanisms—a rebate or discount on the Council Tax bill for householders installing energy-saving measures; a system of Council Tax "low emission" bands (based on EPCs); and/or a Council Tax surcharge on dwellings in, say, the G and H bands where householders refuse to sign up for a package of energy efficiency measures.

Annex

EXAMPLES LOCAL AUTHORITY ACTION ON ENERGY AND CARBON EMISSIONS

Knowsley Heat Streets is an EEC-funded scheme set up by the council to ensure owner-occupiers and those who privately rent have the opportunity to benefit from improving energy efficiency in their homes. The scheme is targeted to neighbourhoods suffering from high levels of fuel poverty and ultimately will roll out across the Borough. Assistance towards the installation of energy efficiency measures is available and between 50% and 100% grant may be available depending on availability of finances.

Cornwall Healthy Homes is a very successful community project to tackle fuel poverty, set up by the local energy efficiency advice centre in partnership with most of the districts in Cornwall. It was initially part-funded by the EST Innovation Fund. It has been copied successfully in Sussex and elsewhere.

Woking Borough Council is often given as an example of a council leading the way on sustainable energy. Their fame is mainly because of their town centre CHP system with private wire. What is often overlooked is that they have achieved their 2010 HECA target already, by using a combination of council grants and joint projects with the local energy efficiency advice centre.

In the 2003 the then Leader of Woking Borough council wrote:

Woking is one of the top local authorities on achieving energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy. Woking has probably the largest Solar PV array in the UK, integrated into its town centre CHP system, it has a building-based fuel cell and several CHP engines in central Woking and in other community buildings around the borough.

Woking has produced an impressive climate change strategy to achieve ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The council frequently describes the environmental and financial benefits to the people of Woking of the action taken on energy by the council over the last 17 years. Much information is available directly from Woking, and for reasons of space it will not be reproduced in this document.

Leicester City Council has some very ambitious environmental commitments to reduce energy and water use in its buildings. The Council is committed to halving the amount of energy it was using in 1990 by 2025 and aims to get 20% of all its energy from renewable systems by 2020. For many years Leicester City Council has played an active role in encouraging and supporting measures that protect the environment. This was recognised in 1990, when Leicester became Britain's first "Environment City". Leicester City Council has since adopted a number of "green" policies, ensuring that its own services and activities meet the high standards it encourages others to adopt.