EAS Response to the Draft Climate Change Bill Consultation Document

Introduction

Energy Action Scotland (EAS) is the Scottish charity with the remit of ending fuel poverty. It has been working with this remit since its inception in 1983 and has campaigned on the issue of fuel poverty and delivered many practical and research projects to tackle the problem of cold, damp homes. EAS has worked with the Scottish Executive and the UK Government on energy efficiency programme design and implementation. It is a member of the Scottish Executive’s Fuel Poverty Forum and was previously on the Scottish Executive’s Central Heating Advisory Group.

Energy Action Scotland is please to view the consultation and to make its response to this important Bill.  The consultation set out 20 questions and EAS has set out its response in the format of responding to each question individually.

Question 1

Is the Government right to set unilaterally a long term legal target for reducing CO2 emissions through domestic and international action by 60% by 2050 and a further interim legal target for 2020 of 26-32%?

EAS agrees that the overall objective of the Draft Climate Change Bill is to reduce carbon emissions by 60% or 1990 levels by 2050. It is also our opinion that this should also be matched with an interim target of 26-32% by 2020. We would also ask that the Government also consider the benefits of setting more regular targets. Whilst the interim target will ensure a degree of consistency in the approaches taken, there needs to be put in place some kind of regular review to ensure that progress is not being unnecessarily loaded towards the last few years as we approach 2020 and similarly 2050. As we have seen in other policies such as Home Energy Conservation Act (HECA) it is impracticable at that stage to introduce new technologies or practices quickly enough to elicit a fast enough reduction in order to make targets.

A biennial review of progress would allow a fair balance between enough time for implementing strategies, observing the benefit and reporting the progress towards the target. An annual target relies too heavily on constant reporting; a period beyond 2 years may introduce un-helpful drift that is not identified quickly enough.

It must be recognised that it can take time for new products or practices to be fully integrated within a mainstream approach to tackling carbon emissions. Some approaches will already have a mature support infrastructure, however others in particular the new low and zero carbon technologies (LZCT) may need time to fully develop, even with grant funding being made available.

Question 2

Is the Government right to keep under review the question of moving to a broader system of greenhouse gas targets and budgets, and to maintain the focus at this stage on CO2?

Anthropomorphic CO2 emissions focus policies on the reduction or efficient combustion of fossil fuels; or the replacement of these energy sources with those that provide the same energy amenity with a reduced or zero carbon emission. In many cases this not only helps to meet environmental targets, but it also meets social targets in terms of the provision of energy at an affordable cost. There are some conditions where this may not be the case, and for the most part our response to the draft Bill will be to caution over policies that focus purely on the perceived carbon saving in deference to those which could meet the dual targets of social inclusion and atmospheric carbon stabilisation.

As CO2 emissions make up 85% of all UK Green House Gases. It would be prudent to focus activity in this area. However we also recognise the potential for landfill gas to be integrated within large scale community heating projects. We would therefore want any system of carbon accounting to recognise this so that this kind of initiative is not disadvantaged over schemes focussed purely on reducing CO2 emissions.

Question 3

Should the UK move to a system of carbon management based upon statutory 5-year carbon budgets set in secondary legislation?

EAS supports the objective that the policy should be structured in such a way as to avoid heavy loading of activity towards the target dates, and that some mechanism to ensure that activity is steady and consistent towards the target. This approach will encourage a support industry that has a sustainable capacity to deliver rather than one more akin to a “gold rush”. It is not clear from the draft how this approach will prevent a “gold rush” in year 1 or year 5 of the budget period? In order to create a confident industry which by its very nature will operate on annual budgets we need a policy that encourages a steady growth from the initial phases of the beginnings of implementation and into a mature and sustainable infrastructure which can deliver year on year the required level of improvements required to meet the interim and long term targets.

The effects of “boom and bust” budgets in other areas such as the insulation industry and the Low Carbon Buildings Programme have been shown to be detrimental by creating cyclical demand on people and skills. If we as a country are to sustain the level of activity required we cannot build a policy that could have the potential for creating a cycle of employment / un-employment and all of the associated start-up costs and time wasted in continually re-building delivery capacity.

EAS recognises that annual carbon targets are impracticable for a variety of reasons; the weather and fuel pricing being specifically referred to in the document. However we would encourage the investigation of specific biennial targets. Having regular carbon targets in this way will maintain an impetus in the industry, anything else runs the risk of creating sporadic peaks of activity either at the beginning or end of 5 year budgetary periods.

Question 4

Do you agree there should be at least three budget periods in statute at any one time?

EAS would not agree as the organisation does not believe that the 5 year budget is the best way to support the industry that will be the delivery mechanism for driving CO2 emissions downwards. We believe that a target should be placed in statute. The effects of extraneous factors on the projected savings expected over a year can be accounted for and should not be taken as a reason to introduce a system that could work against the industry that is critical in delivering the targets required.

Question 5

Do you agree there should be a power to review targets through secondary legislation, to ensure there is sufficient flexibility in the system?

EAS would agree for the reasons stated above in the response to question 4. Factors which could act to reduce the efficacy of certain approaches to tackling carbon emissions can be mitigated through secondary legislation. Conversely, advancements in science may offer the opportunity to exceed expected targets, and between 2008 and 2050 we need to be able to accommodate for these perhaps resulting in higher targets being met more quickly.

Question 6

Are there any factors in addition to, or instead of, those already set out that should enable a review of targets and budgets?

EAS has no strong opinion in this area other than to re-iterate that the social dimension within any programme of works that seeks to address poor energy efficiency must not be forgotten. It is not enough to just push on with everything and anything that demonstrates a carbon saving, we must ensure that the interest of the low income householder are given proper recognition; low carbon high cost fuel economy is not an option that we would support.

Question 7

Do you agree that, in line with the analysis in the Stern Review and with the operation of the Kyoto Protocol and EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), effort purchased by the UK from other countries should be eligible in contributing towards UK emissions reductions, within the limits set under international law?

International trading of carbon has the danger of creating a currency market which could detract from the important social effects of energy efficiency at home. Within the framework of existing and future commitments to overseas development that the UK undertakes there should be a cap on how much of this can be utilised to reduce domestic commitments. To curtail the potential that wholesale carbon trading could create a new currency, clear rules of conduct would have to be established to avoid profiteering from carbon traders. Carbon credits should only be sourced from the beneficiaries and should not then be subsequently traded on, perhaps for a higher cost.

Question 8

Do you agree it should be permissible to carry over surplus in the budget? Are there any specific circumstances where you consider the provision should be withdrawn?

An allowance for “banking” of reductions does have the danger of working against the delivery infrastructure. i.e. savings banked for use in the next period can mean that a hiatus of activity is created, it is exactly this sort of break that can disrupt an established delivery network.

It is prudent to allow a degree of “banking” as this encourages meeting targets more quickly and this has important social implications. Again we would need very clear rules as to which activity would qualify for “banking” and this mechanism could be used to help to target particular activities and/or specific socioeconomic groups of people. If we are making a regular surplus in the budget, then we should perhaps review the level at which the target is set as perhaps a higher target could be practically achievable.

Question 9

Do you agree that limited borrowing between budget periods should be allowed?

Limited borrowing could be a useful way to capitalise on new breaking technologies or practice. Again we would need very clear rules as to which activity would qualify for “borrowing” to avoid the same issues as discussed under the response to Q.8.

Question 10

Is it right that the Government should have a legal duty to stay within the limits of its carbon budgets?

EAS has no further comment on this point other than to agree that a legal duty should be placed upon the Government to achieve the agreed budgets. By this we are alluding to the situation where co-ordination of delivery may be taken forward by Local Government, however overall responsibility for achievement of the targets must be assumed by Central Government and the full power to resource activity must also be taken forward as a function of Central Government.

Question 11

Do you agree that establishing an independent body will improve the institutional framework for managing carbon in the economy?

As in all areas of policy where quantitative assessment is the backbone of the policy, there should be an independent body who is responsible for establishing the framework for accounting. In an environment where there is a desire to push forward with new technology or practice, an independent body needs to be there to be objective and authoritative. However and most importantly this body must be approachable and not exclusive.

Question 12

Do you agree that the Committee on Climate Change should have an advisory function regarding the pathway to 2050?

EAS agrees that the Committee should have an advisory function to Government. It should be in the position to review progress towards targets.

Question 13

Do you agree with the proposal that the Committee on Climate Change should have a strongly analytical role?

The degree to which the Committee should be analytical should not overlap with the role of the Independent organisation referred to in question 12. The Committee should direct the Independent organisation and review their findings and advise Government. It would also be right that the Committee be responsible for overseeing any process of review on a regular basis.

Question 14

Are these the right factors for the Committee on Climate Change to take into account in assessing the emissions reduction pathway? Do you consider there are further factors that the Committee should take into account?

EAS agrees on the list of factors given in 5.55. We would further stress the point that “social circumstances” and “fuel poverty” considerations are given primary importance in the delivery from a UK perspective. There are clearly areas of investment in LZCT that could act to effectively increase the delivered cost of energy to householders. We feel strongly that the low income householders of this country should not be unduly burdened with the cost of polluting. It is beholding on the Government to ensure that those at risk of fuel poverty are given the means whereby they can choose to be less polluting by virtue of having an energy efficiency home.

Question 15

Do you agree the Committee on Climate Change should be comprised of technical experts rather than representatives of stakeholder groups?

Technical experts have a role to play and primarily this should be directed within the role of the “Independent Experts”. The Committee should have the expertise to understand and to advise Government clearly on the full consequences of action. For that purpose technical experts have a role on the Committee, however in order to maintain a balance in practicality of implementation, there is a strong role for the stakeholders to play in this Committee structure. It would be a poor decision to select one route over another, so we would advise that the group be expanded to include a representative of the stakeholder groups. This representative could be supported by a sub group of many stakeholders.

This kind of approach has worked well with the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes facilitated by the EST.

Question 16

Are these the appropriate areas of expertise which should be considered? Do you consider there are further areas that should be considered or any areas that are less important?

EAS feels that the social impact of the policies to address climate change is not strongly represented in the list given. This situation would be better served where stakeholder groups had a direct input into the Committee as suggested in the response to Q.15

Question 17

Do you agree with the principle of taking enabling powers to introduce new trading schemes?

EAS agrees that the Government should take the opportunity now to ensure that “enabling powers” are available to allow the introduction of new trading schemes.

Question 18

Do you consider that these powers are sufficient to introduce effective new policies via secondary legislation? If not, what changes would you make?

The powers as listed in 5.74 would appear to be comprehensive enough to allow the design and amendment of schemes through secondary legislation.

Question 19

Do you agree that the Committee on Climate Change should be responsible for an independent annual report on the UK’s progress towards its targets which would incorporate reporting on a completed period every 5 years?

EAS would agree that the role to report should be taken forward by the Committee, and that the period of this report should be every 5 years. However we would reiterate the point that for practical and implementation reasons a 5 year budget may not be the best way forward. There should be a much tighter biennial review of progress and perhaps a larger more strategic overview every 5/6 years.

Question 20

Is statutory reporting the best way to drive forward progress on adaptation while at the same time ensuring Government is able to develop flexible and appropriate measures reflecting developments in key policy areas?

Reporting on progress must be a statutory function of Central Government. The process to address climate change and the actions taken in order to achieve the aims must be held to public account.