House of Commons - Local Energy - Energy and Climate Change

Local Energy - Energy and Climate Change Contents

4 Overcoming barriers to local energy projects

32. This section explores the barriers which local energy projects may face, including: obtaining planning consent and funding; securing Power Purchase Agreements; overcoming grid connection costs and difficulties, and managing policy uncertainty. We also look at access to advice and support services.

Planning

33. Difficulties in gaining planning consent were highlighted as one of the major barriers to local energy projects.[68] Witnesses argued that obtaining planning permission was a costly, onerous and time-consuming process. As a result, prospective medium-sized energy project developers could be put off. A particular concern was the uncertainty and inconsistency associated with process across different planning authorities. REG Windpower told us:

Many local authorities [are] often throwing out applications for reasons which prove undefendable at appeal, and which are then over-ruled by the inspectorate. This not only delays projects from coming on stream and adds to the start-up costs, but ultimately costs the taxpayer more owing to the large number of planning cases overturned at appeal, with the considerable legal costs this entails.[69]

A number of witnesses suggested that it would be helpful to resolve certain planning issues at the national level, leaving the local consenting process to deal only with genuinely local issues.[70] Philip Wolfe, Westmill Solar Co-operative, told us:

[I]t would be helpful not just for community schemes but for renewable schemes in general if a certain number of issues that get raised repeatedly can be dealt with at the national level once off and then taken outside the scope of what local planning decision making can cover. The old sort of problems of do wind turbines kill birds, do we need renewable energy anyway, isn't it intermittent and therefore useless, these kind of things just get raised at every single instance and really that can be dealt with once and then put on one side.[71]

34. At the local level, better use of local plans could help to improve certainty and reduce risk for developers.[72] Witnesses also advocated mapping of local energy resources, to help developers select the most appropriate sites for their projects.[73] Merlin Hyman, Regen SW, argued:

I think that we have a better situation where we have a local authority with some clarity about what kind of renewables it wants to see come forward and the kind of areas involved. That is not, "You are going to build six wind farms there and a solar farm there", but if you take the example of Cornwall, they are working on a local plan. They have a suite of guidance that sets out what they want. If you talk to a developer, they will say that working in Cornwall it is pretty tough to get through all of those hoops, so it is by no means easy, but if they have gone through all those hoops and the officer says, "Yes, you have done all of that", they are pretty clear—not absolutely certain but pretty clear—that they will get the go-ahead. In a lot of other jurisdictions there is no policy locally. There is very little clarity for the developer about what kind of development is expected. The development comes forward and then there is a reaction based on no clear evidence. The scheme is perhaps rejected and then goes through on appeal.[74]

35. The UK planning system, under which land use for energy generation is given a low priority, was cited as the reason for the lower proportion of community energy projects compared with countries such as Germany and Denmark. The high cost, high risk and time required to gain planning consent were said to disincentivise local projects.[75] Generally, there is no framework within the planning process to take into account the socio-economic benefits of community-owned small to medium-sized renewable energy projects, thus planning decisions do not take into account all the potential benefits.[76] If community benefit was part of the planning process, this could incentivise big developers to involve communities and encourage more community-led projects by reducing the risks associated with planning.[77] For example, the Highland Council Local Development plan explicitly states that:

The Council's initial assessment of renewable energy proposals will apply the same tests of acceptability for a community project as it would to a commercial proposal. However, where a community wishes to develop a small project solely as a community venture, or takes a share in a larger project, then where it is the only community significantly impacted by the proposal the Council will regard this as a material consideration. In such circumstances and subject to the proposals being assessed as acceptable under other relevant policies of the Plan, the Council may grant consent for renewable energy development with greater impacts upon the amenity of that community's area as a place in which people reside or work than would normally be the case.[78]

36. Witnesses expressed concern that the Government's latest proposals for onshore wind planning guidance risked suppressing further developments due to the extra weight given to landscape and heritage impacts. Ian Bright, Managing Director, Totnes Renewable Energy Society, said the new guidance would "kill off any substantial wind farm developments", while Howard Johns, Director, OVESCO, agreed that the guidance would add further barriers:

It is hard enough to do this stuff anyway without adding more barriers to it. The visual impact thing—we live in South Downs National Park. We already have huge constraints on whatever is done there, so to put up a solar farm there is going to be challenging. If there are extra powers for local people to object on visual grounds, it is going to stop anything happening in that area, which would be a real shame.[79]

37. Although the National Planning Policy Framework states that local authorities should consider identifying suitable areas for renewable energy development, Government needs to do more to encourage local authorities to adopt this approach in practice. It should also encourage local authorities to develop clear guidance about what is expected from local energy projects, to reduce uncertainty and risk in the planning process. This approach is also more likely to prevent bad projects from coming forward. While we recognise and support the Government's ambition to return decision-making powers to local authorities, carbon reduction is a national priority. National level planning guidance on key technical issues would help to improve consistency between different local authorities and would help to ensure that only genuinely local issues were addressed through the local consenting process. We recommend that Government incorporates such guidance as part of its planned reform of the existing guidance suite.[80]

Finance

38. "At-risk" capital (that is, money required for project development costs such as feasibility studies, obtaining planning and grid permits, and preparing for construction stage financing) was also highlighted as a problematic area experienced by community groups, local authorities and private sector organisations alike.[81] For example, submitting a planning application for a 500kW wind turbine would typically cost around £50,000 and there is no guarantee of success. Mr Johns, OVESCO, told us that projects required £10,000 to £20,000 just to "get off the blocks".[82] If the planning permission is not granted, then the money will be lost.[83] The Renewable Energy Association explained:

[A]ny community energy project needs to fund pre-planning and planning development work, without any guarantee of success and without any upfront capital support. Larger companies and utilities can shoulder these costs as they are applying for a number of projects simultaneously and have existing bank debt facilities, however smaller groups do not have access to these benefits and must therefore take considerable risks, with uncertain outcomes and no guarantee of recovering expenditure.[84]

Witnesses also reported the "complete aversion to risk" of the debt and overall investment market. Mark Stokes, Managing Director, Utilyx Asset Management, told us that:

We have had recent evidence on some of our schemes where should an investor require a 10-15 year outlook of fixed price fuel risk, let us say on the waste wood market, we would be looking at £45-50 a tonne, whereas on the six month to one year you are looking at attracting a gate fee of £10-15. You have a swing of £65 a tonne which can significantly affect the economics and be the difference between the deal moving ahead or not.[85]

39. Without access to this kind of up-front capital, it is unlikely that many projects (especially community-owned) will come forward. Witnesses suggested a range of possible solutions to this problem, including:

the provision of grants to cover up-front costs;[86]

underwriting development costs;[87]

the provision of loans for up-front costs,[88] and

greater use of joint ventures.[89]

40. Existing schemes include the Scottish Government's Community and Renewable Energy Loan Scheme (CARES), which supports projects before they reach the planning stage. Individual projects can receive loans of up to £150,000 and free legal advice and support. Interest is charged at 10% per annum. If the project is prevented from going ahead (for example by failing at the planning stage), the loan can be written off.[90] Organisations such as Communities for Renewables (a Community Interest Company) provide development finance that is only recovered if a project is successful.[91] The Welsh Assembly Government's "Ynni Fro" initiative has provided some feasibility study funding, as did DECC's Local Energy Assessment Fund (which closed in January 2012).[92]

41. Some practitioners have questioned whether the approach of the Green Investment Bank (GIB) will adequately address the challenges faced by first-stage projects in mobilising finance.[93] The GIB could provide seed funding and development funding to reduce some of the risk.[94] Indeed, it has been suggested in a recent report that the GIB could play a direct role in providing at-risk finance by establishing a development fund to underwrite a share of pre-development project risks.[95]

42. The Government recently announced a £15 million Rural Community Energy Fund (RCEF), which will provide loans and grants to rural communities for development and planning work.[96] The RCEF is designed to help rural communities access finance for feasibility studies into renewable energy projects, and applications for planning permission. With these initial "at-risk" costs covered, the idea is that projects will then be able to attract private finance to pay for low-carbon installations. Applicants can apply for a £20,000 grant to cover the cost of feasibility studies, and a £130,000 loan to cover project costs such as applying for planning permission. Access to the Fund will be limited to rural communities of less than 10,000 residents and communities defined as "predominantly rural." In addition, communities taking up the loan who successfully finance their project will be required to pay a premium of 45% on repayment of the loan, which will then be reinvested back into the RCEF.[97]

43. Existing community projects have taken innovative approaches in order to overcome the problem of "at-risk". For example:

Totnes community windfarm is a joint venture with a commercial developer. The developer bears the cost of preparing and submitting the planning application and the community has the option to take a 49% equity stake as and when the project gets consent.[98]
Westmill Solar was initially privately-funded and then refinanced through a community share offer. This meant that the installation had already been built before members of the community were given the opportunity to invest.[99]
OVESCO used profits from a commercial contract to develop its community energy project.[100]

44. As well as the difficulties in accessing "at-risk" finance, projects (especially community-owned) also often struggle to secure affordable debt finance for the later phases of projects. The Co-operative Bank and Tridos have provided loans to community energy projects, but these organisations are the exception rather than the norm.[101] Witnesses told us that there were currently very few funders who were willing to lend to cooperatives and Community Interest Companies (CICs).[102] The Co-operative Group explained why community-owned projects were at a disadvantage:

Beyond economies of scale, other factors are an influence such as: community groups don't have access to the same technical or legal support as commercial operations, meaning there is more work for the lender to do; and banks incur more risk with community energy projects than commercial schemes due to issues such as capital reserves. For example, if a project overspent due to technical problems a community would be more likely to require the lender to step in than a commercial operation with capital reserves to draw on.[103]

45. There are some examples of social organisations that are willing to lend to community energy projects (such as the PURE Clean Planet Trust, Social Investment Scotland and Big Issue Invest). However, these resources are limited and fragmented.[104] The Co-operative Group suggested that the Green Investment Bank (GIB) could be used to help increase access to debt finance. This could be achieved by providing junior debt,[105] which could then be used to leverage investment from commercial banks.[106]

46. One witness suggested that current accounting rules were preventing the development of on-site or associated generation in the private sector by requiring companies to represent the full value of a shared investment in their accounts:

[...]accounting rules, and specifically I am referring to IAS 17 and IFRIC 4, [...]require us to represent on our balance sheet any investment we make, even if it has been an investment with another company or with another financing body. The paybacks on those investments are sometimes quite long term and sometimes uncertain, which is where we would look for external investment to come in and help underwrite that, but the problem is that those accounting standards require us to represent all of that investment as if we have made it. That is an unhelpful accounting rule that we feel is holding back the partnership approach to investment in this area.[107]

THE ROLE OF POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS (PPAS)

47. Many witnesses argued that the market for Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) posed a barrier to medium-scale energy projects. A PPA between a generator and a supplier provides an assurance to the generator that the power it produces will be sold. Banks and lenders usually require a PPA with an investment grade company (which in practice is usually one of the large energy companies) before they will provide finance for a project.[108] The terms on which PPAs are available already pose problems for independent generators.[109] Cornwall Energy explained:

In July 2012 DECC issued a call for evidence on the state of the PPA market.[110] This was issued as a result of concerns with the terms offered in Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) to projects (most of which fall within the 5-50MW range). DECC's response confirmed market sentiment that generators are finding it increasingly difficult to secure PPAs on attractive terms, leading to higher discounts against market rates for power […]. Terms were generally being offered over 10 year periods instead of 15, and reference prices tended to be set against day-ahead indices, increasing price risk for the generator. This situation, combined with the increasing absence of floor prices in offers, meant that fewer deals offered were now bankable.[111]

48. Witnesses were concerned that the move from the Renewables Obligation (RO) to Contracts for Difference (CfDs), as set out in the Energy Bill, would make the situation worse.[112] Good Energy explained:

[M]edium-scale projects, which are currently able to use fixed PPAs to strike a balanced agreement with electricity suppliers to achieve a good price for their electricity, are likely to be particularly affected by the proposed [CfD] regime. This is because they are likely to fail to capture the full amount of revenue that the [CfD] is meant to provide for, undermining efforts to make a project viable for investment.[113]

This problem arises because the CfD top-up payment is based on average market prices, but under a PPA, independent generators will typically receive less than the average price. Therefore larger generators will receive more per unit of power than independent schemes. In addition, the removal of the obligation to purchase renewable energy that exists under the RO will take away an important incentive on suppliers to enter into contracts with independent generators, leading to worse terms for PPAs.

49. Various solutions were suggested to deal with this problem:

Extending the fixed feed-in tariff (FIT) (which is currently only available for projects smaller than 5MW in size) to include medium-sized projects.[114] DECC announced in July 2013 that it would extend FiTs to include projects of up to 10MW.[115]
Introducing a 'purchaser of first option', which would provide a guaranteed market for community energy schemes and other smaller generation projects.[116]
Introducing a short-term auction market, which would allow generators to auction their output in a six-monthly block on a rolling basis (rather than having to secure a PPA for 15 years, as is currently the case). The auction price would be used to set the market reference price against which the CfD would be struck, meaning that independent generators would not receive a shortfall on their income. This proposal has been called a "Green Power Auction Market" or "GPAM".[117]
Ensuring "private wire" PPA arrangements, where energy is directly linked to the consumer from the generator, continue to be accessible under CfDs once the RO has been phased out.[118]

50. The current landscape for accessing "at-risk" finance is fragmented and in some cases restricted to certain geographical areas. We welcome the Government's introduction of a community energy fund, however we note that it is not just rural communities that experience difficulties in raising "at-risk" finance for local energy projects. We also fear that the high premium repayable on the loans from this fund may discourage applicants. We recommend that the Government considers how support might be extended to other organisations that are interested in local energy projects. The Scottish Government's Community and Renewable Energy Loan Scheme provides a useful model that could be emulated either by DECC or by the Green Investment Bank. DECC is aware that the PPA market currently poses difficulties for independent generators and this situation is only likely to get worse with the move from the Renewables Obligation to Contracts for Difference. We raised this issue a year ago in our report on the draft Energy Bill. It is therefore disappointing that the Government has not come forward with an adequate solution. If Government is serious about increasing competition in electricity generation it must come forward with a credible solution urgently.

Grid connections

51. Witnesses said that access to grid connections is a barrier to medium-sized energy projects.[119] To avoid 'stop-start' progress, a more pro-active approach to network investment has been called for.[120] Community Energy Scotland highlighted the need for investment to take place now in order to be ready for the next wave of renewable energy, and called on Ofgem and DECC to make strategic grid investment a priority in order to ensure affordable and timely grid capacity for new generation.[121] Grid connection costs were felt to be prohibitively high, especially in cases where the grid was already at capacity and would require an upgrade, since the full cost of the reinforcement work fell on the generator wishing to connect (in addition to the connection charge).[122] Mr Hyman, Regen SW, told us:

[T]he developer that triggers that reinforcement is given that bill, "If you want to go forward it is going to cost you X million, maybe up to £9 million". If you had a really big project, 50 MW-plus, you would probably swallow that quite happily. It is the medium-scale projects that suffer from this problem.[123]

The EU Renewable Energy Directive requires Member States to give renewables "priority access" to the grid.[124] Communities for Renewables highlighted that some countries had given renewable generators priority both in grid connection and despatching of energy, which reduced risk for community schemes.[125]

52. Grid access is a particular problem for small and community based schemes because of the need, in most circumstances, to connect to the district network, who are currently "discouraged from engaging with suppliers directly". Furthermore, we were told, on the district network "generators that are being constrained do not receive constraint payments".[126]

53. Community Energy Scotland noted that "there are 100's of MW of operational capacity currently being constrained or remaining unbuilt as a result of inadequate grid infrastructure." The organisation suggested infrastructure investment in the grid be reviewed as an urgent priority:

We would urge DECC to review the current RIIO TD-1 business plan for National Grid, and the proposed RIIO ED-1 business plans for the DNO's, and consider whether they are aligned with the government's generation and low carbon priorities.[127]

54. Witnesses have suggested potential solutions:

Mandate the network operator to investigate renewable energy potential and upgrade the grid accordingly and spread the cost across several developments.[128]

OFGEM and DECC could work with local authorities to identify strategic needs and provide investment.[129]

Require Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) to publish maps detailing where there is existing connection capacity[130]

Exempt community renewable projects from grid access charges.[131]

55. Cost of connection and lack of capacity in the grid to take new connections without significant upgrading, are hindering the development of local energy projects. As a first step, we recommend that Ofgem requires DNOs to publish maps detailing where there is connection capacity. Once the scale of the issue is known, Government should assess the options for facilitating grid connections for small and medium-sized renewable developments, in order to ensure that local energy renewables have "priority access" to the grid wherever possible. Government should also provide advice on grid connection as part of the advice service suggested in paragraph 63 under 'Advice and Support Services'. We also recommend that Government reviews the arrangements between suppliers and District Network Operators so that connections can be better facilitated. We agree with Community Energy Scotland and recommend that DECC review the current RIIO TD-1 business plan for National Grid, and the proposed RIIO ED-1 business plans for DNOs.

Policy

56. Witnesses noted the changes that were made to the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) regime, the Renewables Obligation (RO) banding review, and ongoing uncertainty over electricity market reform as factors that were increasing risk and therefore costs for local energy projects.[132] Such uncertainty may lead commercial organisations to partner with energy companies rather than attempt their own on-site generation:

However, [...] the uncertainty of the incentive schemes and of the policies means that it is not giving us that level of business case certainty that we need to continue to invest directly in delivering renewable energy ourselves. We are doing it a lot more now through partners. We have just signed up to be supplied with 100% renewable energy from our supplier npower and we are working with them to provide that to us through a certified source of generation accreditation scheme so we can be sure where it is coming from and make sure it is renewable.[133]

57. A large number of respondents to our inquiry believed that the changes to the support mechanisms for renewable energy in the Energy Bill (which is currently before Parliament) would effectively "squeeze out" medium-sized projects.[134] Witnesses were concerned that CfDs would not be appropriate for medium-sized projects for a number of reasons:

they will require a level of energy market and trading expertise that only the large utilities are likely to possess;

independently-owned projects are likely to receive less money per unit of electricity generated (see paragraph 47 on Power Purchase Agreements for more detail); and

CfDs will introduce even greater uncertainty into the level of returns that might be expected, thereby pushing up the cost of financing.[135]

58. DECC will extend the threshold for FiT payments from 5MW up to 10MW [136] through amendments to the Energy Bill at Committee stage in the House of Lords.[137] We welcome this announcement. It goes some way to addressing the concerns of witnesses who argued that current arrangements would result in a missed opportunity for medium-sized local energy projects.[138] A large number of witnesses showed support for extending the FiT threshold, which we also recommended in our previous report.[139]

59. Some witnesses suggested introducing an entirely new support mechanism for medium-sized projects.[140] Witnesses pointed to problems with existing support mechanisms and told us that CfDs had been designed for "big players" and were simply too complex and risky for most community groups to want to engage with.[141] Philip Wolfe, Westmill Solar Co-operative, said:

The Renewables Obligation and the CFDs are both measures that were invented by the energy industry for the energy industry and they are almost impenetrable. [...] [T]hey are impenetrable to the vast majority of the population. They were never designed to be usable by people who are not members of this tight energy fraternity.[142]

60. Community Energy Scotland suggested that the existing definition of "community organisation" under the Feed in Tariff Order 2012[143] excluded the vast majority of community energy projects:

The definition is contained in article 11 of the FiT Order 2012 and essentially limits eligibility to cooperatives, community benefit societies ('bencoms'), and community interest companies (CIC's).[144]

According to the organisation, 80% of community energy projects in Wales and 90% of those in Scotland are excluded under the current definition. This is because they have been largely developed under a "charity and trading subsidiary model", in which the parent community organisation is a charity and the project vehicle is a wholly owned subsidiary. Community Energy Scotland pointed out that "under the DECC definition, neither charities nor trading subsidiaries which are ordinary companies are eligible." The fact that there is no requirement for a minimum level of local ownership or membership for a community organisation could result in eligible community energy projects which in fact deliver no greater benefit to the local community than conventional, privately-owned developments.[145]

61. We commend DECC for undertaking to extend the Feed in Tariff threshold to enable projects of up to 10 MW in size to access this support mechanism. This should provide greater certainty for small to medium-sized local energy projects to come forward and is a step in the right direction. However, projects between 10MW and 50MW will not be served by Feed in Tariffs and are unlikely to be able to access Contracts for Difference, which are geared toward much larger-scale developments. There is a risk that these projects will be disadvantaged by the move from the Renewables Obligation to Contracts for Difference. We recommend that Government brings forward an alternative proposal to support projects within the 10-50MW range to incentivise the development of medium-sized projects which cannot access either Contracts for Difference or Feed in Tariffs.

62. We are concerned that the current definition of "community organisation" under the Feed in Tariff Order 2012 risks excluding community energy projects which operate under a "trading and subsidiary" model. We recommend that DECC amend the definition to ensure that these projects are eligible. We also recommend that DECC consider introducing a minimum level of local ownership or membership within the definition of "community organisation".

Advice and support services

63. Both communities and local authorities highlighted lack of expertise as a barrier to medium-sized energy projects. Witnesses told us that capacity and expertise varied significantly between councils.[146] Hampshire County Council said "in addition, fragmentation of resources and expertise is another barrier to development of projects, both to local authorities as well as community led projects. There is without doubt a wide range of resources and expertise available, but often accessing it can be a significant barrier.[147]

64. Several witnesses suggested that local authorities' attitudes towards risk were a key factor in their involvement in local energy projects.[148] Hampshire County Council explained:

Risk is another area that will always be a concern to a local authority in relation to the development of these types of projects. Risk is a determinant of whether a local authority is prepared to make a financial commitment. It is unfortunate that often balancing levels of risk can also lead to the potential benefits being transferred to the private sector, away from the local authority, and the wider community. This can mean schemes do not necessarily meet the objectives for which they were originally perceived. There are also many examples and experiences of local authorities withdrawing commitment at a critical point which has significantly damaged a project being worked up in partnership.[149]

Hampshire County Council went on to suggest that "some sort of risk/reward GVA [Gross Value Added] analysis toolkit for energy projects similar to those used for transport infrastructure projects may be a way of ensuring that the appetite is transferred to commitment and delivery".[150]

65. The majority of community-owned projects rely on unpaid volunteers to run the project.[151] Ian Bright, Totnes Renewable Energy Society, told us:

On our board—and these are all people who have come forward—we have a very expensive lawyer who is putting in his time for nothing. The ex-head of planning for the local authority is now our planning director. We have a very well qualified engineer as our engineering director, and an accountant and a professional communications director. These people are all putting in their professional expertise.[152]

However, not all would-be community projects are lucky enough to have such expertise available for free in the local area and as a result, community groups can often lack expertise in several key areas. These include: financial (such as suitable financing models, addressing risk etc); planning; legal; knowledge about different technologies and the risks associated with each, and knowledge about the energy market, regulation and policy support mechanisms.[153]

66. Many witnesses believed that some form of advice or guidance service that could help to fill these gaps would be beneficial.[154] The Renewable Energy Association (REA) noted that "there are a couple of groups providing [access to expertise and knowledge] for free, but they are very heavily oversubscribed".[155] A survey of community energy groups conducted by academics at the University of East Anglia and Sussex identified some of the organisations who are currently providing advice and support:

At country-level and UK-wide, a handful of significant network hubs were evident [...]. The Transition Network was the most commonly named organisation (named by 12 respondents) followed by Community Energy Scotland (11) and the Energy Saving Trust (10). Other key hubs were the Low Carbon Communities Network, Energyshare, the Development Trusts Association Scotland, the Centre for Sustainable Energy, Co-operatives UK, Carbon Leapfrog, Community Powerdown Scotland and Locality. Whilst six of these organisations specialise in sustainable energy, it is notable that community development organisations (e.g. Transition Network and Development Trusts Association Scotland, Locality), and business associations (e.g. Cooperatives UK) also played a key role.[156]

67. Co-operatives UK recommended the introduction of "co-ordinated advice and support services, endorsed and funded by Government but run by independent experts".[157] Rebecca Willis, Co-operatives UK, explained that this was "not about getting a website" but rather it would involve "interactive advice from one person to another".[158] Mr Hyman, Regen SW, advocated a suite of regional level schemes rather than a single national initiative.[159] Several witnesses mentioned Community Energy Scotland as a good example.[160] Graham Meeks, Combined Heat and Power Association, noted that the Heat Networks Delivery Unit within DECC provided an equivalent model for decentralised heat projects.[161]

68. Community-owned energy projects have to rely on the goodwill of volunteers to get projects up and running. However, not all projects are able to access the expertise and specialist knowledge that is needed to get projects off the ground. The Government should introduce an advice service that can provide support to community groups on issues such as how to finance a project, ownership structure, the planning process, energy technologies, the energy market and the various support mechanisms that are available. Community Energy Scotland could provide a useful model for how such a service might operate. The appetite and capability for local authorities to undertake local energy projects varies across the country. Government should introduce guidance and support for authorities, which sets out the pros and cons of investing in energy projects, in addition to national planning guidance as recommended in paragraph 37. It should also develop "best practice" guidance for those that would like to go down this route.

Delivering a complete package of measures

69. Despite the rhetoric from central Government about its support for community-owned energy projects, it seems that the projects that have materialised to date have done so "against all possible odds."[162] Given the sheer number of barriers that need to be overcome — obtaining finance, gaining planning consent, accessing support mechanisms, dealing with a changing and uncertain policy landscape and finding people with the necessary expertise to do all of this who are willing to work on a voluntary basis — it is perhaps not surprising that community energy projects are still few and far between.

70. We have recommended ways in which Government could help to improve access to finance (paragraph 50), develop appropriate support mechanisms (paragraphs 61 and 62), reduce risk in the planning process (paragraph 37) and improve access to support and guidance (paragraph 68). If the Government is serious about supporting community-owned energy projects, it needs to develop a package of measures that will help to address all of these barriers simultaneously. Addressing only one or two will not be sufficient. The Government should also set out its expectations in terms of what such a package of measures could deliver in the form of an indicative target.