CRC - Making the Scheme Work event - 5 November 2010

This was another very well attended event, with excellent feedback.

Delegates’ comments included

• “Another excellent and informative event”
• “Very useful”
• ”Fundamental to my understanding of our obligations and requirements under the Scheme”

Amanda de Swarte, London Energy Project’s Head of Efficiency and Improvement, gave an overview of London’s procurement, efficiency and savings opportunities and updates on the Carbon Reduction Commitment Scheme, since the significant changes to the scheme were announced in CSR10.  Amanda also gave an update on key challenges to local government and changes to the utilities sector, which were announced in CSR10. It is clear that although there are significant opportunities to make savings, there are equal pressures that are likely to add costs, such as the application of take or pay penalties, the impact of smart meter roll-out, upgrades to network distribution, and commodity price risks.

Presentation: Amanda de Swarte - LEP Future Landscape Opens in a new window

Presentation: Amanda de Swarte - CRC CSR10 Scheme Changes Opens in a new window

Presentation: Amanda de Swarte - Sector Update Final Opens in a new window

Indra Thillainathan of the Climate Change Committee provided details of the review the committee undertook of the CRC Scheme and their findings.  It is clear that some of these recommendations were taken into account.  Another interesting fact is that within the scheme, local government (including schools) accounts for 7MtCO₂: the only single contributor with a higher burden is the supermarket sector, which accounts for 11MtCO₂. You can read the Climate Change Committee’s original presentation and report at http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/carbon-reduction-commitment

Stephen Cirell gave an interesting summary of the legal issues associated with the CRC, and kept the audience entertained with anecdotes of past legal challenges.  It would appear that the CRC was an orange, since CSR10 it has become an apple, and the likelihood is, that post consultation, the CRC will be a green orange!

To break up the day, Richard Street, Regulatory Affairs Manager, updated delegates on potential changes to gas charges and recovery of costs on behalf of ICoSS (I&C Shippers and Suppliers).  It is clear that keeping up to date and managing the pace of change to the utilities industry is more critical than ever to energy managers and their boroughs’ budgets.

Presentation: Richard Street - ICOSS Opens in a new window

Paul Hamblyn and Emma Hutchinson, Pulse 24 Ltd and Green Energy Partners, gave delegates a more in depth understanding of the substantial red tape that is still endemic in the CRC.  The audience were aghast at the sorts of things that were required in an evidence pack, which seemed to require the kitchen sink from each property in portfolio.  Topics covered were

• data management,
• evidence packs,
• using forecasting to predict costs,
• the responsibility of departments and functions.

Presentation: Paul Hamblyn - Module 2 Guide and Tools Outline Opens in a new window

Presentation: Paul Hamblyn - Data Management Opens in a new window

Presentation:  Emma Hutchinson - Evidence pack and forecasting Opens in a new window

Presentation:  Paul Hamblyn - Who's responsible Opens in a new window

Notably, delegates were asked: do you have processes and procedures for gathering and managing data for the purposes of evidence? Before the session only 10% felt they didn’t have systems in place, after the session, this had risen to 40%!

Paul also announced the results of the pan-London CRC Health Check, outlining key risks, opportunities and possible savings moving forward.  It is now up to LEP and the boroughs to work out the most effective way of delivering carbon reduction and cashable savings moving forward.

Presentation: Paul Hamblyn - Pan-London findings Opens in a new window

Finally, throughout the day delegates’ opinions were sought on a number of issues. Highlights include:

• 50% thought they would have cuts to budgets or staff numbers, with a further 40% being unsure.
• 70% thought the changes to the CRC scheme were a good idea, with 30% being unsure.
• 33% felt the increased cost of the scheme would mean their energy efficiency budgets would be reduced, 33% didn’t know and the other 33% felt their energy efficiency budget would remain unchanged
• An overwhelming 98% of delegates thought that schools should pay for the cost of purchasing allowances and 60% of delegates felt a performance incentive should be kept in the scheme.

Read the question and answer summary Opens in a new window