Green Finance - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

3  Government funding and support

41. In this Part we discuss the support provided by the Government for green investments through the Green Investment Bank and Infrastructure UK loan guarantees, but also through separate funds for community energy projects. The Government told us:

    New sources of capital are required for investment in green technologies, given the overall magnitude of investment required in the United Kingdom. A relative lack of information and expertise amongst such investors about green technologies ... could be a barrier to attracting additional green investment.[93]

As well as providing finance, Government initiatives aim to remove these barriers by managing risks, simplifying processes and building the skills and experience in these projects.

Green Investment Bank

42. The Government set up the Green Investment Bank, which started operating in October 2012, to "enable projects that are both green and commercial".[94] In our 2011 report on the Green Investment Bank we recommended that the Bank should be set up as soon as possible, with a significant initial capitalisation and the ability to borrow. The Government accepted our recommendations, although they announced that the Bank would only be able to borrow in principle from 2015-16 but only "once the target for debt to be falling as percentage of GDP has been met" (paragraph 48).[95] Four-fifths of the value of its investments is divided between four main 'priority sectors' (offshore wind, waste recycling and energy from waste, non-domestic energy efficiency, and support for the Government's Green Deal), as stipulated by the terms of its State Aid approval from the European Commission. Shaun Kingsbury, the chief executive of the Green Investment Bank, told us:

    ... we are an infrastructure investor. We don't invest in venture capital or technology; we don't invest in project development or private equity type investments. We have an infrastructure mandate, which was agreed with Brussels when we established the Bank. We can provide capital into the debt or the equity or a mezzanine strip in a project, as long as it gets an appropriate rate of return.[96]

43. The Bank was mandated to achieve its aims by 'crowding in' investment. It has Government funding of £3.8 billion, and at the time the Bank was established the Government expected that, with private finance invested alongside the Bank, there would be "an additional £18 billion of investment in green infrastructure by 2014-15 as a result of the [Bank]".[97] Shaun Kingsbury explained:

    We don't want to take away the risks from the market; we want to help solve the risks with the market. We want to find solutions, where the people best able to take the construction risk should take the construction risk, and the people best able to take the technology risk should take the technology risk. If we can get those structured, and it means the first transactions take a huge amount of time and effort, and get the risk allocation right and then demonstrate we are serious about it by putting large chunks of capital alongside it with the right risk adjusted return, then other people will come and repeat.[98]

As of January 2014, the Green Investment Bank had committed £764m, to mobilise £3,200m when fully deployed, a ratio of private to public investment of 3:1.[99] Shaun Kingsbury told us in September 2013 that "we think £3 to £1, for example, 25% of the total capital, is a pretty good number."[100]

44. Shaun Kingsbury told us that "our vision for the Bank is to create an enduring institution".[101] It was looking for low-risk investments that are unable to find finance, rather than to speculate on higher risk technologies or to be "early stage technology pickers".[102] It is aiming for a balanced portfolio:

    We are investing against a portfolio of technologies and a portfolio of sectors. We have senior secured debt, mezzanine, equity, geared equity and increasing amounts of risk. When we look across a balanced portfolio, we will undoubtedly, looking back five years from now, have some projects that were huge successes and some that failed to perform to the level we expected. Overall I expect this to be very profitable but it is not that there will not be situations where, frankly, something did not hit the numbers we said it would. We are taking risk, but we are doing it in a very thoughtful, structured and controlled way.[103]

He described how the Bank:

    ... mapped out all the places that we could invest in and we basically built a two-by-two matrix that looked at risk and looked at green impact, and where we wanted to focus was the areas that had the biggest green impact and the lowest risk.[104]

45. The Bank is not only seeking to help to fill the gap in the funds being made available for investment in green infrastructure. It is also about demonstrating what is possible to others. Shaun Kingsbury highlighted the Banks investment in replicable projects: "We are breaking new ground. It is important that we create structures in the transactions we do that other people will recognise and be able to repeat."[105] Selecting projects that would secure good commercial rates of return played a part in this.[106] He explained:

    We want to find solutions, where the people best able to take the construction risk should take the construction risk and the people best able to take the technology risk should take the technology risk. If we can get those structured, and it means the first transactions take a huge amount of time and effort, and get the risk allocation right and then demonstrate we are serious about it by putting large chunks of capital alongside it with the right risk adjusted return, then other people will come and repeat.[107]

46. Jonathan Maxwell of Greencoat investors, who received £50m from the Green Investment Bank to invest in both onshore wind and offshore wind, explained to us how that approach was critical for funding the construction phase of projects. He described how once renewable energy schemes were operational they could then be sold to longer-term investors, such as pension funds.[108] Ian Simm of Impax Investment Management concluded that the Bank had been successful so far on that front:

    The Green Investment Bank is at a very early stage in its lifetime and we should not judge it just yet, but it has been very successful in identifying projects that fit its mandate, in my view, and ... it has attracted a significant volume of pure private sector capital into the areas that it is supposed to be focusing on. I think from the current vantage point it is doing a good job. It appears to be successful in catalysing investment into offshore wind, waste management and biomass in the energy sector.[109]

47. However, we heard some criticisms of the Green Investment Bank's approach. Friends of the Earth, whilst supportive of the Bank, stated that it believed that the Bank had "made investments that we believe are environmentally questionable", citing the partial conversion of the Drax power station to biomass.[110] Biofuelwatch argued that the Green Investment Bank investment in the Drax conversion is not consistent with the Bank's overall goal for green impact, which includes the protection of the natural environment, enhancement of biodiversity and the promotion of environmental sustainability.[111] Shaun Kingsbury told us that ultimately the decision to fund Drax was based on a "Government decision about what represents green", but added:

    We take that a step further by writing that into all the documentation, by having real teeth in those agreements and by ensuring that we follow up by auditing and tracking that, so that if, in the end, we found that any investment we made was not following the agreements we had in place around how it sourced its biomass, we have the ability to retrieve the loan, put them into default and get our money back.[112]


48. In our March 2011 report on the Green Investment Bank, we recommended that it be able to raise its own finance and offer a range of commercially driven investments as soon as possible. The Government has prevented it borrowing until 2015-16 and "once government debt is falling as a percentage of GDP".[113] Last year's Autumn Statement noted that such a milestone had slipped to 2016-17, although the graphs in the Autumn Statement report showed projected debt to be, if not falling, at least no worse than flat between 2015-16 and 2016-17.[114] Several of our witnesses questioned why the Bank's borrowing should be controlled when the similar KfW bank in Germany borrowed significant sums in order to provide extensive loan finance to renewables and energy efficiency schemes, particularly community schemes.[115] In our 2011 report on the Bank we noted how the Government's decision to limit the Green Investment Bank's borrowing hinged on the decision by the Office for National Statistics to classify the Bank's borrowing as 'public sector debt'.[116] Shaun Kingsbury told us that "a natural step in due course might be a combination of public and private sector ownership", but that was not the Bank's current focus.

    My view has been that if I am successful in that and we do build a very green and profitable investment bank here, there will be lots of sources of capital open to a profitable and successful company, one of which would be debt. We would like to borrow at some point in the future, but right now I have plenty of capital. [117]

49. The business and energy Minister, Michael Fallon, considered that "it has all the funding it needs for the moment; it has funding through to the end of 2015-16. It has plenty to be getting on with and plenty of projects to be investing in, so I think it is a little early to start comparing it directly with its German equivalent."[118] He noted that "[the Bank] has approval up until October 2016 and we will have to go back to the [European] Commission and extend that approval if we are to continue to fund its borrowing rather than push it out into the capital markets."[119]

50. The Green Investment Bank has made a solid start, making investments which will help to fill part of the gap in the required level of green investment. The Bank's aim, rightly, is to establish itself as an enduring institution. It needs to be able to raise significant further private sector capital for investment alongside the Bank's programmes, and to borrow itself to enlarge the scale of its work. However, with Autumn Statement 2013 indicating a flat, rather than falling, trajectory in 2015-16 for Government debt as a percentage of GDP—the Government's test for allowing the Bank to borrow—there is doubt about the prospects of the Bank being able to borrow in that year as originally planned. The Government must make an early and clear statement about the Green Investment Bank's long-term future, beyond the 2015-16 horizon of its Spending Review funding settlement. The Government should declare in Budget 2014, on the basis of the flat projections for Government debt in the last Autumn Statement remaining valid, that the Bank will be permitted to borrow in 2015-16.

Energy efficiency

51. On energy efficiency, Stephanie Maier of Aviva Investors was positive about the Bank's role, particularly the result.[120] Aviva Investors and the Bank are jointly funding a £36m new energy innovation centre for Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust at Addenbrooke's Hospital. The centre is designed to deliver financial and carbon emissions savings.[121] The Green Investment Bank has also announced plans to finance low energy street lighting, by offering local authorities low fixed rate loans over a period of up to 20 years, with repayments to be made from the resultant savings.[122]

52. Finance is needed for the Green Deal energy efficiency scheme, but as we noted in our December 2013 report on Carbon Budgets, take up has been slow. We concluded that that might indicate the presence of significant non-financial barriers as well as financial issues for homeowners.[123] The Green Deal Finance Company is a not-for-profit company, established to minimise the set up and administration costs of providing finance for Green Deals. The Government intend that the loans would be "regularly aggregated and refinanced in the capital markets at high investment grade: Aggregating loans in this way provides access to liquidity for energy efficiency improvements that may otherwise not be available at the level or scale required by participating households."[124] In our report on the Green Investment Bank, we expressed concern that it would be difficult to achieve the multiple objectives of the Green Deal, and that the Bank should play a part in financing the scheme.[125] The Bank has now committed £125m to the Green Deal Finance Company.[126]

53. In his evidence to the inquiry, Alan Simpson criticised the Government's approach to financing energy efficiency:

    From the insanely complex (and costly) structure of Green Deal, to the reliance on energy companies to deliver (over-priced) ECO refurbishment, to the retreat from national energy efficiency standards and the fixed-budget (and ever changing) constraints on renewable energy generation, UK policies on Green Finance seem designed to marginalise its role and to prop up the powers of the UK's existing energy cartel.[127]

He described how the KfW development bank drives Germany's energy efficiency programme by providing loans at lower than market rates through high street banks (having first received underwriting from Government to facilitate the supply of loan capital), and writing off up some of the loan, if refurbishment reaches their 'near-zero' carbon homes standard. In 2011 the KfW delivered 360,000 whole house upgrades (and supported 370,000 jobs).[128] In contrast, Shaun Kingsbury told us that the cost of capital for the Green Deal was "a little more expensive" than a mortgage-secured loan.[129] Although the Green Deal operates under the 'golden rule', that the expected financial saving should be equal to or greater than the costs attached to the energy bill, it is not necessarily the cheapest form of finance for all projects.[130] By the end of December 2013, 626 households had measures installed, and a further 986 had indicated that they wanted to proceed or were in the process of being installed.[131]

54. We are pleased that the Green Investment Bank has provided funding for Green Deal energy efficiency schemes. However, the number of schemes financed by the Green Deal is still some way off the required level, or that achieved in Germany. The Government should make the Green Deal simpler and more attractive to households in order to achieve the level of scale-up required. Steps could include significantly reducing the assessment fee and the interest rate on the Green Deal loan, to be more in line with the terms of the Help to Buy scheme equity loans which start at 1.75%.[132]

Community energy

55. The Green Investment Bank has not addressed the problems which community energy schemes have in accessing finance. This was an issue raised at our Guildhall seminar last year.[133] Robert Rabinowitz compared the situation in the UK, where perhaps 1% of renewable energy is either owned directly by individuals or through communities, and Germany where the figure is much greater.[134] In Germany, 35% of renewable energy generation was owned by individuals in 2012.[135] There has been a longer tradition in Germany of affordable finance for community projects supported by the KfW development bank,[136] which provides significant financing to support and promote community energy (paragraph 53).

56. The Green Investment Bank has not so far invested in community projects because of the scale of its operations: "We have £3.8 billion that we wish to invest over the next few years. It is very difficult to do that in chunks of £1 million or £2 million for a community project; we have to invest that in chunks of £25 million and above."[137] The Community Energy Strategy states that the Government are working with the European Commission on including small-scale onshore wind and hydroelectricity sectors within the Bank's approved scope of operation.[138] When we spoke to the Commission in February 2014 they told us that the decision-making process for approval did not need to take a long time. The Government has spent a long time talking about extending the remit of the Green Investment Bank to community energy without being able to show any progress. The Government should prepare and submit the relevant information to the Commission to secure State Aid approval for these additional areas of activity for the Green Investment Bank as quickly as possible and should work with the Green Investment Bank to develop effective aggregation methods to facilitate smaller scale lending.

57. Mike Smyth of Energy 4All told us that community energy projects in the UK are usually funded by both local residents and outside investors through community energy groups: "At Energy 4All we find that approximately half the members of the project are local and half are from what is described as a community of cause".[139] But bringing together investors through 'crowdfunding' has risks, with "a high level of trust [needed in] the integrity of the people running those projects because, at the moment, they are not subject to [Financial Conduct Authority] disclosure rules".[140]

58. We heard how community energy has been dominated by areas where people have the specific financial skills required to set up projects. Robert Rabinowitz pointed out that "if you want to know where community energy projects are, look at where the retired solicitors and accountants live".[141] He explained that one of the major issues with community energy "is not the attractiveness of the returns; the problems are around the transaction costs and the risk management procedures."[142]

    Part of the problem is that small community energy groups find it very hard to play the numbers game on planning, for example, because they only have one project, whereas a commercial developer might have 20 projects. ... Some of them are going to fall away and some of them will survive, but if you only have one project and you are reliant on semi-retired people and you do not have deep equity to underwrite development planning risks, then it can be very challenging. I think we need a mechanism to mutualise risk among the smaller groups so that you replace the deeper pockets that a larger organisation would have.[143]

Mike Smyth of Energy 4All explained how in Germany:

    KfW do provide that backstop role. They have a set of standardised documents and transactions and they will then provide guarantees to the lending bank for a very modest fee. That is another way that Germany is driving the development of renewable energy and community ownership.[144]

59. James Vaccaro of Triodos Bank told us "the next logical stage" would be using the more efficient technology that is currently deployed at a larger scale "within the local environment, ... developed by local people".[145] The Government launched its Community Energy Strategy in January 2014, which set out a range of initiatives to support local energy projects. It announced a new £10m Urban Community Energy Fund for England to go alongside the £15m Rural Community Energy Fund. The Community Energy Strategy also announced the "establishment of a 'One Stop Shop' information resource for community energy, developed with community energy groups using seed funding from government".[146]

60. In December 2013 the European Commission launched a consultation on proposed new rules for State Aid for the energy sector, which could potentially affect the viability of community schemes.[147] The Government's Community Energy Strategy promises a consultation in "spring 2014" on doubling the maximum capacity ceiling for solar PV Feed-in Tariffs from 5MW to 10MW for community projects.[148] However, the Commission's proposals envisage feed-in tariffs being available only for the smallest renewable energy projects (under 2MW) and payments to those above that threshold being determined by competitive auction, which might require community projects to compete on price against large energy companies. This runs counter to the Government's plans in the recently published Community Energy Strategy:

    In response to feedback from community groups on the type of financial incentive that works best for them, through the Energy Act 2013 the Government took powers which will allow the Secretary of State to increase the maximum capacity for community projects eligible for [feed-in tariffs] from 5MW to 10MW. We intend to consult on the use of this power in spring 2014.

    At this stage our view is that this change would address the potential access to market issues that community groups looking at these larger projects faced, and remove the perverse incentive for community groups to limit their electricity generation projects to 5MW. This will help community energy realise its electricity generation potential.[149]

61. James Vaccaro also identified access to the grid as a key factor for successful community energy,[150] as well as local authority engagement:

    ... things are changing and there are some local authorities who are trying to take leadership, but they have to do it themselves a little bit first to show they are serious because there is not a wealth of community energy groups there for them to choose. It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation and, in a way, they have to be able to show they are committed to it for the long term to be able to generate the interest.[151]

Michael Fallon told us in December 2013 that he "would envisage us mapping out a route for community projects to work with local authorities on schemes of interest to them, whether that is generation or purchasing, or indeed, ... reducing energy use or energy demand."[152] The subsequently published Community Energy Strategy acknowledged "a lack of capacity and understanding of the benefits of community energy; inconsistency compared with other local authorities in the application of planning rules and consents; and confusion over interpretation of government's energy and climate change targets".[153] The Strategy envisages partnership and guidance to encourage local authorities to do more, with a new Community Energy Unit to be set up in DECC to be a focal point for these issues. It also states "we will work with Ofgem to look at ways to enable communities to supply energy, including license lite".[154] License lite is a scheme to license energy producers to supply electricity through the local grid. Since it was established in 2009, there have been no License lite agreements, although the Greater London Authority has applied for a license and is in advanced stages. Such schemes could help reduce bills by allowing local communities to receive electricity at lower rates. License lite relies on reaching agreement with existing District Network Operators who control access to the local grid.

62. The Government's Community Energy Strategy addresses a number of the issues of concern raised during our inquiry. The scale of some of the challenges is significant, and will require co-ordination between Government departments and local authorities for progress to be made. We await to see what 'teeth' the Community Energy Unit will have to make progress on these issues. In contrast, the European Commission's proposals on energy state aid rules appear to run counter to the strategy's objective of encouraging community energy groups. The pace of change has been slow, particularly around key initiatives such as 'license lite' and State Aid approval for the Green Investment Bank to be involved in Community Energy. The Government should work with the European Commission to ensure its proposals to reduce the threshold for small-scale feed-in tariffs are not carried through. The first priorities of the new Community Energy Unit in DECC should be to seek early State Aid approval for the Green Investment Bank to invest in community energy, and to actively engage with other departments—including DCLG and the Treasury—to ensure that all local authorities have the tools and resources to play a full part in making such schemes a widespread and successful part of the UK energy mix. It should prioritise initiatives to allow community energy producers to directly supply energy at lower prices to local communities, and work with Ofgem to make it mandatory for District Network Operators to work with License lite and set fixed fees for this.

Sources of funding

63. Although we heard that the Green Investment Bank has sufficient funds for its current projects, it is scaling up its operations and there is still a 'gap' between the funding levels required and currently available. Under the infrastructure Guarantee Scheme, introduced in 2012, the Government has been providing guarantees for up to £40 billion for large scale projects, to avoid delays to investment in major UK infrastructure projects that might stall because of adverse credit conditions. The Government supports projects which "may find it difficult to obtain private finance, not necessarily because of the commercial or economic viability of the individual infrastructure projects but because the banking markets are currently constrained and providers of finance are taking significantly longer to approve lending to these projects."[155] The scheme has included some 'green' projects, including energy and energy efficiency programmes, for example providing £75 million to convert the Drax power station to run off biomass, and £9 million to support investment in improving the energy efficiency of industrial buildings and urban infrastructure.[156]

64. Michael Fallon told us that the Guarantee Scheme and the Green Investment Bank co-ordinate well and work together on projects:

    The UK Guarantee Scheme ensures that it is easier for those financing these big projects, whether they are transport or nuclear power or a biomass conversion, to access that kind of finance in the markets; it enables them to do it on slightly easier terms. It does not make it cheaper, but it enables them to do it over a longer timeframe. The Green Investment Bank of course is taking a direct stake in some of the projects, so there is relatively little overlap between the two. There are a couple of examples, one of which is Drax, where both instruments have been deployed, but they have different purposes.[157]

Shaun Kingsbury told us:

    [Infrastructure UK] can provide debt guarantees—that is the only tool they have—but we have more flexibility in the ways we can provide the capital. If they go in and it is a project where they would like to provide a debt guarantee, it means that the lenders are not looking at the project, they are really looking at the guarantee. It extends the market of people willing to lend money because they do not need to be experts in biomass or waste or whatever, they just need to accept the credit guarantee from Infrastructure UK.[158]

65. There are significant challenges to be overcome in achieving a low-carbon energy supply. Many of these can be overcome by political consensus, but some will require technological innovation, and greater collaboration between countries. The EU's Horizon 2020 funds important areas such as Carbon Capture and Storage and interconnectors between Member States.[159] There are also other EU funding schemes which potentially offer opportunity for greater investment, including the European Regional Development Fund. Future European Regional Development Fund rounds (2014-20) will include a thematic focus on the low-carbon economy, and more developed regions such as the UK will be required to spend a minimum of 20% of the funds on this theme.

66. Within the UK, there are also funds for innovation, such as Ofgem's Low Carbon Networks Fund.[160] Local Enterprise Partnerships could provide support for green finance. Whereas the former Regional Development Agencies had low carbon enterprise as a core theme, the Regional Growth Fund (which can be used by Local Enterprise Partnerships) does not include low carbon development as part of its core criteria. It encourage all bids "to demonstrate, where possible, how their proposal will contribute to green economic growth",[161] but as we recommended in our report on Sustainability in BIS last year, the Government should ensure that Regional Growth Fund grants are more closely aligned with the need for action on environmental protection and climate change.[162]


67. We heard suggestions for how the Government could raise more investment, through re-directing Quantitative Easing and a Financial Transactions Tax. The New Economics Foundation told us that the Bank of England should re-direct Quantitative Easing—the policy of purchasing financial asset with central bank money, increasing the amount of 'liquid' funds in the economy. The Bank of England's Asset Purchase Facility has since January 2009 made total assets purchases of £375 billion.[163] New Economics Foundation believed that the aim of Quantitative Easing was "to stimulate the economy by nudging investors to invest in other, productive sectors of the economy, and by reducing long-term interest rates, making investment more attractive" and proposed that:

    the Asset Purchase Facility buys bonds issued by agencies with a specific remit for sustainable investment within the UK, such as house building and retrofit and low carbon infrastructure.[164]

The Green House also told us "We would support the recent call ... that quantitative easing should be used strategically to provide finance for green infrastructure."[165] The New Economics Foundation explained that:

    Even if there is no additional quantitative easing, and there has not been the last couple of quarters-the Governor has chosen not to increase it—£100 billion-worth of corporate bonds will reach maturity over the next 5 years and the Bank of England is then faced with the decision as to whether it renews those bonds or the Government just pay them back.[166]

In response, Michael Fallon told us he did not support these proposals:

    Quantitative easing is a matter for the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee. Parliament has given that committee a very precise remit to focus on price stability, and I think it would undermine its task of pursuing price stability if we started to give it conflicting policy objectives or asked it to target certain sectors of the economy or indeed to start thinking about how some Government spending programmes would be financed. I would not support that.[167]

68. Josh Ryan-Collins of New Economics Foundation envisaged a Financial Transactions Tax having the benefits of raising green finance, reducing financial speculation and improving macro-economic stability. He believed that high-frequency trading is "net socially negative in terms of welfare costs, because it is fine in the good times, but in the bad times it pulls liquidity out of countries when they most need it".[168] Friends of the Earth told us that they "strongly support" a financial transactions tax.[169] Aviva Investors, however, said that they would favour a trade cancellation fee in place of a tax.[170] Michael Fallon told us that the Government's opposed the current EU proposals as it could add costs to business and affect the financial services sector:

    We are not opposed to a financial transaction tax in principle, but we believe it would only be acceptable here, it would work only if it was done on a global basis and that kind of consensus is simply lacking at the moment. There is not even a consensus in the European Union. There are only 11 member states, a minority of the member states, who are currently signed up to trying to proceed with it and we do not think that is the right way to make policy. Of course if they did go ahead, it could be quite damaging to us here. It could put up costs and damage our financial interests, so we are obviously concerned at the extent to which the European Union is pursuing this.[171]

69. Whilst we recognise the difficulties inherent in redirecting Quantitative Easing and securing the international support needed to introduce a financial transaction tax, we consider there is merit in further investigating such devices to provide an additional source of finance for green investment. We urge the Government to look positively at ways of overcoming the problems relating to such funding sources.

93   Ev 94, para 11 Back

94   Green Investment Bank 'What we do' Back

95   Environmental Audit Committee, First Special Report- Progress on Carbon Budgets: Government response to the Committee's Second Report of 2010-12, para 27 and 28 Back

96   Q76 Back

97   Treasury / BIS The Plan for Growth (March 2011), para 2.160 Back

98   Q100 Back

99   Green Investment Bank Presenting Our Investments (January 2014)  Back

100   Q129 Back

101   Q112 Back

102   Q124 Back

103   Q101 Back

104   Q104 Back

105   Q100 Back

106   Q9 Back

107   Q100 Back

108   Q123 Back

109   Q160 Back

110   Ev w37 Back

111   Ev w23 Back

112   Q139 Back

113   Treasury, Budget 2011,HC 836, para 2.2 Back

114   Treasury, Autumn Statement 2013, paras 1.82, 1.84 Back

115   Ev w49; Ev w6  Back

116   Q112 Back

117   Q112  Back

118   Q232 Back

119   Q235 Back

120   Q162 Back

121   Pension Funds Online Pension fund investment helps finance green infrastructure project, (March 2013) Back

122   Green Investment Bank Low energy streetlighting: making the switch,(February 2014) Back

123   Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2013-14, Progress on Carbon Budgets, HC 60, Conclusion 5, para 53  Back

124   Ev 96, para 34 Back

125   Q104 Back

126   Green Investment Bank, Green Deal Case Study  Back

127   Ev w50 Back

128   Ev w50 Back

129   Q104 Back

130   Green Deal Finance Company and Capital Economic, Green Deal Payment Plans The Facts (September 2013)  Back

131   Department of Energy and Climate Change, Domestic Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation in Great Britain, Monthly report (January 2014), Table 3, p17 Back

132   Government, Affordable home ownership schemes; Help to buy: equity loans  Back

133   Ev 80  Back

134   Ev 80 Back

135   Energy Transition, German renewables still grassroots movement  Back

136   Environmental Audit Committee, Second report of Session 2010-12, The Green Investment Bank, para 42 Back

137   Q87 Back

138   Department of Energy and Climate Change Community Energy Strategy (January 2014) Back

139   Q201 Back

140   Q201 Back

141   Q193 Back

142   Q207 Back

143   Q195 Back

144   Q207 Back

145   Q195 Back

146   Department of Energy and Climate Change, Community Energy Strategy (January 2014) P10 Back

147   European Commission, Draft Guidelines on environmental and energy State aid for 2014-2020, (December 2013) Back

148   Department of Energy and Climate Change, Community Energy Strategy (January 2014) Back

149   Department of Energy and Climate Change, Community Energy Strategy (January 2014), paras 182-183 Back

150   Q192 Back

151   Q218 Back

152   Q225 Back

153   Department of Energy and Climate Chang, Community Energy Strategy, (January 2014), para 75 Back

154   Department of Energy and Climate Change Community Energy Strategy (January 2014) p10 Back

155   Ev 96  Back

156   Treasury, UK Guarantees scheme: table of prequalified projects Back

157   Q239 Back

158   Q106 Back

159   European Commission, Horizon 2020 The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Back

160   Ofgem, Low Carbon Networks Fund  Back

161   HM Government, Local growth: realising every place's potential, p36 Back

162   Environmental Audit Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2013-14, Sustainability in BIS, HC 613 Back

163   Bank of England, Quantitative Easing Explained  Back

164   Ev 88 Back

165   Ev w6, para 17 Back

166   Q182 Back

167   Q249 Back

168   Q185  Back

169   Ev w36 Back

170   Ev 114 Back

171   Q250 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 6 March 2014