Labour Conference Fringe - Delivering a Low Carbon Energy Future

Mon, 28 September 09 | DeHavilland Report - Event

Summary
New skills for a Low Carbon Energy Future were paramount if the UK was to address the challenges of climate change and energy insecurity, Labour announced today.

David Kidney, Minister for Energy and Climate Change, was speaking at the Labour Party Fringe entitled ‘Delivering a Low Carbon Energy Future’. Also speaking at the event, organised by EDF Energy was Paul Spence, Director of strategy and Regulation, EDF Energy, and Ed Crooks from the Financial Times was in the chair.

Climate change, energy and security, and social justice; these were the three issues underpinning the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the Minister stated.

Low carbon and renewable energy would require new skills, the Minister declared, highlighting a recent National Grid report raising concerns over limited jobs and skills in engineering. Actions must be taken now to ensure the UK had the necessary skills in place to address future energy concerns, he said. Pressed on this during the question session, he announced that the national skills strategy would be published in autumn.

Regardless of arguments for and against climate change, it was clear that the UK could not continue to rely on fossil fuels whether from the UK or from overseas, Mr Kidney said. The transition to a low-carbon future would involve some costs, he conceded, but stressed that these had always been known.

There was a danger that some people would be left behind, the Minister continued, explaining why programmes like the WarmFront scheme had been introduced. There was also a responsibility on energy companies to meet social pressures, he claimed.

Partnerships between local authorities, energy companies and communities could provide cost efficient savings, he said, referring to current pilots to produce street-wide renovations. He suggested these could be the future model for schemes such as CERT and WarmFront.

Affordability, security of supply, and Climate Change were the three biggest issues facing the UK’s energy sector, Paul Spence warned. The UK was set to increase oil and gas consumption, which would result in increased CO2 emissions, greater dependency on hostile countries and exposure to volatile market prices. The costs of energy would rise as the UK’s energy infrastructure was developed, he added.

EDF was supporting people facing fuel poverty, Paul Spence told the audience, explaining that they were the first company to introduce a social tariff and an energy trust. They also contributed to schemes such as CERT, he observed, stating that smart meters would be a major contributor to improving efficiency.

The UK had to decarbonise, Mr Spence argued. Carbon capture and storage, renewable energy and nuclear were the three ways to address this, he said.

New nuclear would be essential for decarbonising the UK, Mr Spence stated. He hoped four new sites would be built, including two in Sizewell, however, it would need leadership from government on planning, the carbon market and skills. Long-term visibility was needed on the carbon market beyond 2012, given the substantial investments which would be made.

The green agenda would require a substantial number of engineers, Mr Spence said.

There was an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions whilst ensuring those on lowest incomes could retain their low carbon footprint and affordable energy, Jenny Saunders said. Outlining solutions such as heat pumps and biomass, she explained that these had to be appealing to consumers. The huge costs involved demanded government support she argued, they could not be left to energy companies alone.

She feared that plans for a low carbon energy future were ignoring the costs involved and the affordability issues facing those from low incomes. She warned that polices and frameworks in place would not work, stressing that the Government must consider who would cover the costs involved.

The welfare system must be overhauled to be linked more closely with housing, Ms Saunders continued. She warned that fuel poverty could increase if the costs of infrastructure plans were passed onto households who could least afford it. Micropower would have to be matched with additional funding, she said, suggesting a new form of investment bank.

Some subsidies would have to continue in the short term, along with social tariffs, and grant aid, Ms Saunders concluded. She called on the Government to reconsider cuts to WarmFront under the PBR and to ensure that the skills review included social justice.

During the question and answer session, members from Nuclear 21 asked where nuclear supplies would come from. Concerns were also raised that the Scottish Government’s position was unsustainable.

Security of supply would be a pressing issue, the Minister replied. Nuclear proliferation was a genuine concern, he conceded, noting international discussions ahead of the nuclear proliferation treaty meeting to be held in May.

Turning to Scotland, he said a UK wide approach would be preferred, but could not comment further.

Pressed on subsidies for low-carbon technologies and the nuclear industry, David Kidney observed that feed-in tariffs would be introduced in April next year. There was a danger that some people would be left behind, he feared, explaining that a WarmFront scheme was considering how barriers could be overcome. A national skills council for all energy sectors was needed he said, disputing suggestions that this amounted to a hidden subsidy. He insisted that there would not be a subsidy for the nuclear energy.

New nuclear did not need a subsidy, what it needed was equitable treatment and a level playing field, Paul Spence felt. A skills academy was needed for nuclear he said.

Grants helped individuals pay for upfront cost that they would not otherwise be able to make, Jenny Saunders said. Furthermore, it would create many low-skilled jobs, she added.

A representative from the nuclear decommissioning authority countered any suggestions that they were a secret government department funding the nuclear industry. He argued that it was right that they were there to support communities who had helped the first wave of energy to be developed.

Turning to CCS, the panel were asked what infrastructure would be introduced for transporting carbon.

There was no perfect system in place, rather various models to follow, David Kidney replied. The Secretary of State was committed to establish up to three more CCS projects in addition to the one in place, the Minister said, explaining that the government hoped to open competition for the second of these projects as soon as possible.

Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, Chair of the Nuclear Industry Association, raised concerns that the CCS projects would not be up and running in time for the Large Building Plant Directive. He warned against budget cuts to the WarmFront scheme.

WarmFront funding was allocated on a three-year cycle, the Minister explained. Increased demand and the recession meant that the budget had not been cut, rather the money allocated in this period had been brought forward.

The large building plant directive would severely restrict coal-fired power stations, Mr Kidney conceded. He acknowledged that there was a tension between energy companies and environmental groups, but said that CCS could provide a solution.

2014 was still the target for getting the first project up and running, the Minister confirmed, explaining the Government hoped to award the contract before the next general election.

Constituents would feel a reduction of support for fuel poverty, Ms Saunders said, rebutting the Minister’s view.

A member of the Energy Saving Trust turned to smart metering, arguing that consumers should have greater control over their energy consumption.

The Minister highlighted the recent publication of carbon emissions across local areas, allowing the public to see how their efforts were taking effect.

The government’s commitment to introduce smart meters would require informed consumers who could use the information available, the Minister stated. Smart grids would also be part of this revolution in energy, he declared.

Greater information for consumers and the industry would be paramount for reducing energy consumption, Paul Spence agreed.

Low-households relied on gas for their central heating, and those on pre-payment meters were fully aware of the amount of energy they used, Ms Saunders commented. People would be fearful about smart meters she warned, stressing that people needed greater understanding of the new meters.

A member from the Royal Institution for Chartered Surveyors suggested the Emissions Performance Certificate be linked to other incentives.

These certificates were very new, the Minister observed, but eventually incentives would be a way to proceed.

The National Housing Federation raised concerns that if consumers could not use the information on smart meters, it would be useless. Pre-payment meter households were still facing a premium.

The impact assessment found that everyone would gain by smart meters David Kidney replied. Some concerns had been raised that those on pre-payment meters were facing unfair costs, but this had now been addressed, he said. The cost-reflective assessment was a separate issues, which was worthy of a wider public debate as to who would cover this cost, he told the audience.

There was no difference in the tariff being paid for EDF customers, Paul Spence said.

Jenny Saunders called on other companies to make similar commitments, stating energy must be made fairer.

A spokesperson from the Combined Heat and Power association said that the UK’s gas resource should be maximised.

Combined cycle gas was an option to be explored as part of the energy mix, David Kidney said.

Labour Fringe - New Nuclear: building the low carbon future

Sun, 27 September 09 | DeHavilland Report - Event

Summary
Building new nuclear power stations was the right decision and represented a clear opportunity for Britain as a whole, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said today.

Lord Hunt, Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, was speaking at a Labour conference fringe event entitled “New Nuclear: building the low carbon future”, which was organised by the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA). The event was also addressed by representatives from NIA and energy firm E.ON.

The Minister said that the decision to build new nuclear was the right one to have taken and held huge potential for the country, if the investment was taken advantage of.

Britain was at a critical moment, having to ensure energy security for the foreseeable future, and also having to drive the reduction of carbon emissions, Lord Hunt said.

The energy sector faced challenges, he asserted: security of supply; energy efficiency could also still be greatly improved; and the reduction of carbon emissions.

On security of supply, he said that the Government had created a diversification policy, with greater storage and port facilities, as well as the developing of a southern corridor through Europe and working to maximise the use of North Sea reserves.

Tough targets had been set both in the workplace and domestically for energy efficiency, he continued. In terms of capacity, major developments were being seen, he said, with ten gigawatts in construction, a further ten gigawatts with consent, and 7.5 gigawatts in the planning pipeline.

There was also an ambitious target for 15 per cent of energy production to be from renewable sources by 2020, with 30 per cent of electricity created from these sources, Lord Hunt noted.

The expectation was that the first new nuclear plant would be running by the end of 2017, he outlined. The government had sought to speed this introduction in several ways, he said: they had legislated to ensure that companies invested money up-front so the cost of decommissioning would not later have to be met by the taxpayer; streamlined the planning system and regulatory environment; and they were soon to publish the national policy statement to set out a list of possible sites where government thought nuclear sites could be built.

All the conditions were in place or would be soon, he said, suggesting that the future for new nuclear was very good indeed in Britain. The question therefore was how to take advantage in terms of jobs and investment in the supply chain.

The history of nuclear development was one of early British leadership which had been turned against, he said. Britain now had a second chance thanks to this government, which the country had to grasp, he asserted.

The potential to make the supply chain a strong British one was there, he argued, whilst the skill base of the industry also had to be developed.

Concluding, Lord Hunt said that as Energy Minister he had a strong determination to ensure that Britain made all it could of new nuclear.

More had to be done to get across to young people the potential benefits of a job in the nuclear industry and of the qualifications that could lead to this, he agreed with a questioner.

Scrapping the Infrastructure Planning Commission, as suggested by the Conservatives, would be very damaging indeed, he said in response to a question. The IPC would allow decisions to be made much more quickly and transparently, he asserted, and this was one example of the Conservatives undermining something clearly in the national interest.

Asked about issues around fuel poverty, Lord Hunt said that an Energy Bill due to be brought in during the next parliamentary session would enhance social tariffs as a first step.

From next April there would also be feed-in tariffs, to encourage people to create micro-generators in their homes and to reward them for putting energy back into the grid. He also pointed out that smart meters would be introduced over the next ten years, and said that this would help people take more control over their energy bills.

Also speaking at the event was Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan, Chairman of the NIA.

People had for a long time written nuclear power off, Lord O’Neill asserted, due to issues around nuclear waste and nuclear weapons.

The case for nuclear energy had now been largely accepted, he said, but the public was still concerned, particularly about safety.

Major breakthroughs had been seen in the last twelve months, he said, pointing to the creation of a generic design process which had even satisfied inspectors from the Environment Agency; as well as a wide recognition that the country needed a reliable base-load generation 24 hours a day, and that this reliable generation would require nuclear power.

The country could not be dependent on gas from abroad, with its volatile prices, nor on renewables, Lord O’Neill argued: nuclear had to be part of the answer, as long as it was safe and reliable.

A national policy statement was needed as soon as possible, he demanded, which should have been in place by July this year, to allow consultation to take place before the next election.

The pricing of nuclear power was linked to the pricing of treatment of waste, and this had to be resolved clearly and quickly, he asserted. Renewables would be costly to the fuel-poor, he warned, but similarly nuclear power should not be hung with legacy costs from the old inefficient state-run system, and there had to be a conversation about this issue immediately.

In conclusion, Lord O’Neill said that nuclear power would likely create many jobs, but that all it promised immediately was to fill a generating gap safely and securely, to a reasonable price if given the right conditions. If this was allowed to occur, then the industry would be able to offer young people jobs for life.

Germany was about to commit itself to nuclear, as many European countries and those in the Middle East had or were doing, he noted. These people would require expertise in regulation and in engineering, and if Britain got it right by 2017 it could have an engineering renaissance of a kind that could at the moment only be dreamed of. Britain was at last on the right track, he said, but the short-term problems would first have to be dealt with and a lot of hard work done before this potential was realised.

Responding to questions, Lord O’Neill recognised that new build would create a small amount of additional waste, although this was far less than older stations created. There were new global solutions to waste management which should help control this, he asserted.

The meeting was also addressed by Colin Scoins, Director of Development for E.ON. Mr Scoins began by thanking Labour for the political support it had given the nuclear industry, saying this was always vital because of the long development cycle of nuclear energy.

Nuclear was not in competition with other sources but part of a mixture, he underlined. Each source of low-carbon energy had its place and had to be utilised, he said. Nuclear had a secure supply that was cheap to run once in place, and so had to be part of the answer.

Nuclear was a low carbon source, Mr Scoins insisted, with no more in-train carbon content than an off-shore wind plant. It was economically competitive with other low-carbon sources as well, he said, and so passed the key tests for inclusion in the mix.

Good strides had been made in finding a solution for waste disposal, he asserted.

In conclusion, Mr Scoins sought to assure people that with a sixty year lifespan nuclear energy would provide reliable, lifelong jobs for local areas.

There was an issue around education and training, he recognised in response to a question. More had to be done to encourage people into science and engineering studies to create a pool of skills, but this was not necessarily the role of private companies.

Nuclear waste was seen differently here than in other countries, due to its early role in domestic generation and the less reliable reactor types that had been involved, he suggested in response to a question from the floor. There was good reason to believe that many of these problems had been solved.

The event was chaired by Jamie Reed MP, who said that the nuclear industry in Britain owed a lot to Labour, which had made every single major investment in nuclear power in this country.

Nuclear provided 40,000 jobs now and could create another 100,000 if the new generation was brought in properly. As older reactors had started going offline there was a direct correlation with the rise of carbon emissions, as they were being replaced by gas, coal or imports, he also underlined.

Asked about suggestions of using old nuclear weapon stocks to produce energy, Mr Reed said that there was a stockpile of waste that would cost £4 billion to dispose of, but that could generate £15 billion worth of energy and help to reduced carbon emissions, and suggested that this was a clear choice to make.

Liberal Democrat Fringe - Delivering a low-carbon energy future

Mon, 21 September 09 | DeHavilland Report - Event

Summary
While the Liberal Democrats remained opposed to nuclear power, this position was 'not credible', Lembit Opik has today stated.

Speaking at the Liberal Democrat conference at a fringe event entitled 'Delivering a low-carbon energy future' were:

· Lembit Öpik MP

· Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson, Managing Director for Nuclear New Build, EDF Energy

· Jeremy Nicholson, Energy Intensive Users Group

· Janet Wood, Editor, Utility Week (Chair)



Lembit Opik stated his belief that it was impossible for the UK and the Liberal Democrats to meet their climate change targets without nuclear energy.

Other renewable sources, such as wind, could not produce the power needed and still had intermittency problems, he argued.

Reactors could be built more cheaply than was the case in the past, Mr Opik stated, highlighting the French nuclear industry as an example.

He stated that the safety record for nuclear power was good, and although there had been accidents they by and large had not been serious.

Waste management was an issue, but the UK needed to build a depository to deal with existing waste as it was, Mr Opik said.

Mr Cadoux-Hudson agreed that a deep storage solution was already necessary and that new nuclear build would simply add to this. Generating companies would be required to set aside money for decommissioning and future storage, he explained.

Mr Opik added that modern pressurised water reactors generated much less waste than past designs.

The UK would need roughly double the electricity it was producing now if it was to electrify the transport system, Mr Opik told the meeting, asserting that nuclear had to play a part in this.

Britain faced the challenge of reconciling emissions reduction, security of supply and affordability, Mr Cadoux-Hudson told the meeting.

A large investment was needed to address climate change and there was no single solution, he said. Renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage would all play a part, the EdF director asserted.

Mr Cadoux-Hudson explained that EdF had committed to reducing its carbon output by 60 per cent by 2020 and was investing €3.3 billion to this end.

However, this presented a challenge in terms of security of supply, he warned, stating that the UK would become more dependent on imported gas as coal fired power stations were shut: therefore nuclear power had a role to play.

The investment needed was enormous, Mr Cadoux-Hudson said, stating that market mechanisms had to be put in place to provide this.

Finally, he stressed the need for improved energy efficiency.

Jeremy Nicholson warned that the UK would not get near its carbon targets unless the electricity supply was decarbonised. However, he stressed that this had to be done in an affordable way so as to ensure that those British firms that had heavy energy demands did not lose out to foreign competition.

Mr Nicholson observed that the UK had come within 24 hours of rationing gas supplies in the winter of 2005/06. The answer was to diversify the energy mix, he argued, stating that renewables, gas and nuclear all had a part to play.

The Government had ambitious plans for renewable energy, but it was not realistic to think that it could do the whole job, Mr Nicholson said.

Asked how long the UK had to respond, Mr Nicholson stated that in 2015 the country would lose around 12 GW of capacity as coal plants were forced to shut as a result of European environmental regulations.

New nuclear would not come onstream until at least 2020, he added.

Mr Cadoux-Hudson explained that EdF had a credible plan to complete the first of its new nuclear plants by 2017/18, although this relied on getting planning consent.

Coal stations were reaching the end of their design life regardless of environmental legislation, he told the meeting.

Lembit Opik warned that a future Government would do whatever was necessary to keep the lights on, even if this was at the expense of the environment.

Mr Opik argued that there was no credible alternative to nuclear power as part of the energy mix.

Asked if the four nuclear plants that EdF were planning on building were enough, Mr Cadoux-Hudson stated his company had no plans for more, but noted that RWE and E.On were also considering a joint-venture.

On the issue of subsidies, he noted that renewables, gas plants and carbon capture and storage all received support in one form or another. The question was the degree to which unsubsidised nuclear power could compete against these, Mr Cadoux-Hudson told the meeting.

Subsidies were an issue, but currently wind power was the most subsidised form of energy generation, Mr Opik said. He pointed out that wind power had environmental impacts of its own, such as increasing run off from the hills on which turbines were sited.

Mr Nicholson suggested that industry had a role to play, such as by taking long term contracts out with nuclear plants. He pointed out that renewables benefited from support in the form of the Renewables Obligation.

The Climate Change Levy was 'completely dysfunctional' as it did not treat nuclear power as a zero-carbon energy source, Mr Nicholson said.

Mr Cadoux-Hudson told the meeting that new nuclear build would create 2,000 construction jobs and also provide employment in the supply chain. He dismissed the idea that the world would run out of uranium in the near future, adding that there was always the potential to reprocess spent fuel.

Reprocessing was crucial, Mr Opik agreed, stating that it was nonsensical that fuel rods were discarded after only two per cent of fuel had been used. The economics of the matter would change as resources became more constrained, Mr Nicholson added, but said that this point was 'decades away'.

Responding from a question from Greenpeace on EdF's volte face on the issue of subsidy, Mr Cadoux-Hudson stressed that the company had not asked for one, but did want a level playing field with respect to other forms of generation that emitted carbon.

Challenged over charges against EdF France for conducting industrial espionage against Greenpeace, Mr Cadoux-Hudson stressed that the senior management did not condone these practices.

In his closing remarks, Mr Nicholson warned that enthusiasm for wind had run ahead of what was technically feasible given the intermittency problems. He voiced concerns over official Liberal Democrat policy for a European supergrid, arguing that wind and solar could not supply all the power that was needed all of the time.

Mr Cadoux-Hudson underlined the scale of the task facing the UK power industry, warning that an enormous investment was needed. The answer was not just nuclear, but was also not just renewables or distributed power, he concluded.

Mr Opik stated that the nuclear industry needed to be able to survive without subsidy. He observed that the party and the public had become more sympathetic towards nuclear power.




Labour Fringe - Brown's Green Vision - What about coal?

Mon, 28 September 09 | DeHavilland Report - Event

Summary
Joan Ruddock, Minister at the Department for Energy and Climate Change today announced that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology was a vital part of Labour’s overall energy strategy and would play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to reach international targets.

The MP announced that emissions in the UK had peaked and could only fall from here on, with the help of technologies such as CCS.

She was speaking at a Labour Party conference fringe event entitled “Brown’s Green Vision: What about Coal?” Also speaking at the event were Andrew Parker, policy advisor at The Royal Society, Gordon McGregor from Scottish Power and Ruth Davis from the RSPB. Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment correspondent for the Sunday Times chaired the event.

Responding to accusations that Labour had not done enough to ensure the implementation of CCS, Ms. Ruddock said that she had a new team in the Department for Energy and Climate Change and that they were ready for any proposals to help tackle climate change. She also said that the current Energy and Climate Change Bills helped to provide a framework in which CCS technology could be developed.

Ms. Ruddock also announced Labour’s targets to decarbonise all homes, modes of travel and energy supplies by 2020 and a seven-fold increase in renewable energy being used in the UK by the same year. She predicted that in seven years, 7 nuclear, 6 coal and 3 oil plants would close and that all coal plants will be closed by 2025. She emphasized the difficulties of eliminating coal altogether without having a suitable means with which to replace it as coal currently supplies 32% of the nation’s electricity supply.

There had been large steps made by the Labour Government to fully assess the feasibility of CCS on a national commercial scale, Ms. Ruddock argued. The search for suitable underground locations in which to store CO2 was already underway and a consultation on CCS was launched in June 2009. Labour had also recently funded a doubling of the number of demonstration sites for CCS to 4. The first demonstration to be held by 2014 and the first commercial scale demonstration to take place in 2020. Pre-existing coal plants were to be retrofitted so that they could conform to the CCS standards once the technology has been proven. She predicted that 90% of emissions could be captured using CCS. However, Ms. Ruddock also stated that if CCS could not be shown to work on a national scale, new plans would have to be decided upon.

As part of an international climate and energy issue, Ms. Ruddock argued that the UK was a world leader in developing coal technologies and that one important part of the CCS policy was that it would be able to be adopted by developing nations with high energy needs such as India and China.

Speaking earlier, Ruth Davis representing the RSPB, highlighted the potential for disaster should the world and the UK not act on climate change. She announced that a 4oC rise in global temperatures would result in 40-50% of the world’s species of plant and wildlife dying out. She went on to argue that climate change, and coal in particular, was a developmental as well as an environmental issue. Ms. Davis said that the development of clean coal technologies was key to reaching international targets. Referring to the Copenhagen Summit approaching she argued that any international agreement would involve some tough choices domestically. She argued that CCS was worth trying and she praised Labour for making some progress on getting rid of unabated coal.
However, Ms. Davis also said that more needed to be done as there was currently only two thirds of a policy in place and what was needed are incentives for development as well as demonstration, a regulatory backstop and a sensible plan for commercial implementation.

Gordon McGregor from Scottish Power spoke after Ms. Ruddock. He argued that there was an argument to be made for using coal in the short, medium and long term. He also highlighted the advantages and disadvantages of using coal. He said the advantages of coal included; its abundance, stable prices compared to gas and oil, supply security and the ease with which it could be stored.
He also emphasized the disadvantages of coal such as the pollutants and CO2 released by it’s burning. He went on to welcome the governments consultation on CCS and the competition commitment included but argued that there was still a gap between the regulatory policy and the funding provided. He also questioned the role the Emission Trading Standards (ETS) was to play in future climate change policy as a result of CCS implementation.

Moving on to the international issues concerning CCS, Mr. McGregor raised on issue that he believed could prove troublesome in the future. He highlighted some developed and developing countries which have a higher dependence on coal that the UK. These included South Africa (94%), Poland (91%), China (81%) and the USA and Germany (Both at 49%). Mr. McGregor argued that all of these countries have significant reserves of coal that they would be less than willing to give up and that CCS may prove to be too expensive for other countries to adopt, given the larger scale. A new framework would have to be implemented in order to make CCS economically feasible

Speaking in his role as science advisor to the Royal Society, Andrew Parker sought to put the use of coal in context and outlined what he believed to be some of the features of a well-implemented CCS strategy. He said that coal produced 25% of the world’s energy supply but also 20% of its emissions and 8,000 coal stations produced two thirds of global emissions. There were many potential benefits for a CCS strategy done well but Mr. Parker argued to do this CCS would not be achieved by the market alone; the Government needed to play a role as well. There was also the need to avoid another ‘dash for gas’ as cola became more expensive, investor’s turned to cheaper gas supplies. Mr. Parker also highlighted the need for a clear timetable; he cited ‘capture ready’ as too vague a term. Finally, he emphasised the need for greater public awareness as to the benefits of CCS and for a program of public dialogue to reduce misunderstandings and fears over CCS.

In a Q&A session, Ms. Ruddock agreed that there was more to be done on CCS, especially in developing a new framework for development and implementation. She again emphasised Labour’s understanding that CCS was to be a part of a larger overall emissions and climate change strategy that included Energy Performance Standards and the Emissions Trading Scheme. She also addressed the issue of gas, announcing that her department hoped to be able to tackle gas under the same rules as coal but coal currently has priority as its emissions are almost double that of gas. She argued that CCS was technology that has already been proven in Norway but it now needs to be tested to see if it can be implemented on a national and commercial scale. Finally she highlighted that “Everything depends on getting a deal at Copenhagen.”

Labour Fringe - Collective power: a new approach to co-operative energy

Sun, 27 September 09 | DeHavilland Report - Event

Summary
The Government would announce a £10 challenge scheme to boost innovation in community-led energy schemes, the Energy and Climate Change Minister confirmed today.

Joan Ruddock MP asserted that the scheme would be announced by the Secretary of State, Ed Miliband tomorrow. She was speaking at a Labour fringe event entitled ‘Collective power: a new approach to co-operative energy’, held by the Cooperative Party and SERA. The event was held to discuss the ‘Collective power: changing the way we consume energy’ document published by the Cooperative Party.

Joining her on the panel was Hugh Goulbourne, Energy Coordinator at SERA, Cliff Mills of Cobbetts Solicitors, Robbie Erbmann, Policy Officer at the Cooperative Party and Leonie Cooper, member of the SERA Executive who chaired the event.

Ms Ruddock welcomed the SERA/Cooperative document, adding that its aims were in line with the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) vision.

The Climate Change Act set in line an 80 per cent target to reduce carbon emissions, she stated, adding that a large amount of these emissions came from the home energy sector.

More and more energy should be generated by clean sources, such as clean coal and nuclear, Ms Ruddock asserted. The Department was alive to the issue of energy usage and the energy companies had been pushed to assess this, she added, stating that homes were being made more energy efficient.

In March next year, clean energy cash backs would incentivise people to produce green energy, Ms Ruddock maintained. Smart meters were being rolled out over 10 years, ensuring that all homes had them by 2020, she added.

The Act on CO2 campaign was essential in changing behaviours, the Minister went on to argue. People would act if they saw the government acting and their community making changes, she added. Community energy schemes were not new, she added, stating that district heating schemes had often been forced on communities by local authorities, many of which were poorly run.

However, a district heating scheme in Aberdeen was a success, Ms Ruddock detailed. There needed to be different forms of financing such schemes, she added, stressing that people needed to be protected.

DECC was happy to work with the Coop on community ownership schemes, the Minister asserted. Tomorrow, a new scheme would be announced whereby 20 communities would take part in a £10 million challenge fund, underpinning radical and dynamic solutions put forward by the Government and such groups as the Cooperative Party, she confirmed.

Opening the proceedings, Mr Erbmann stated that the new model of political ownership set out in the pamphlet could take Labour into a fourth term.

He added that confidence in politics had diminished in recent months, together with confidence in the banking sector. Institutions needed to be moulded to meet the needs of people and not the other way around, Mr Erbmann insisted.

The Cooperative Party representative asserted that anything could be overcome when collective action took place. This was something the Government could facilitate, he added.

Cooperatives were set up to allow people to have access to food at the right price and to address a number of consumer needs, Mr Erbmann asserted. Green Peace and Friends of the Earth had been successful in mobilising people but this could be increased, he argued.

Change was achieved by cooperatives and trade unions, he added, stating that the collective power model was a way to tackle climate change. This highlighted the importance of large purchasing power, Mr Erbmann maintained.

Mr Goulbourne stated that SERA was one of the smaller and lesser known socialist societies, arguing that the group had been making a bigger impact over the last decade. SERA was interested in fuel poverty, he asserted, adding that the joint SERA/Cooperative Party paper set out that price was a hook to get people interested in the energy sector.

By buying as a collective, communities could make savings and have certainties over price for the coming year, as large companies had, Mr Goulbourne maintained. This could be a first step to owning and running energy creation facilities, such as windfarms, he added.

Planning was an issue as this stopped one in three energy projects, Mr Goulbourne lamented, whilst cost was a factor in putting communities off creating a cooperative for energy. These two problems were intertwined as delays in planning meant costs increased, he maintained.

The SERA representative argued that people in a cooperative could ensure that planning permission for a generator was granted as the combined pressure of 1,000 people could persuade local councils.

Many people in society were looking for an investment model for communities, something this idea would bring about, Mr Goulbourne maintained.

Tackled by the floor on reducing energy use, Mr Goulbourne stated that the main thrust of the plan set out in the pamphlet was to reduce costs to a community and then to introduce smart meters to help people understand energy use, helping them to tackle it.

Combined heat and power would also be part of the project, he added.

Darren Barrenger, Labour PPC for Harwich and North Essex, spoke about two transition towns in his constituency, asking how he could harness public support for these. Mr Goulbourne replied that ordinary people tended to get more interested when the conversation was about economic savings and ownership.

Mr Erbmann stated that this pamphlet could offer a model for environmental groups to take forward. The Cooperative Party was happy to work with transition towns on this, he maintained.

Labour MP Nia Griffiths asked about examples of projects of community ownership.

Fellow Labour MP Alun Michael asked why community ownership of wind energy was not being made easier.

Mr Goulbourne stated that European models were being looked at, adding that examples of community ownership could be seen in Belgium.

Mr Mills asserted that traditional funding mechanisms did not work for communities. In the UK, only one form of ownership was understood; that of being able to sell it in the future, he added.

The word investment was taking money to make more money, something that was limiting, he maintained. This was not always the case, as the history of cooperatives showed. The movement addressed the need for basic food and provisions but also financial services, as options of where to keep money was limited at a time, Mr Mills added.

Demutualisation meant that the form of ownership around retaining financial services was smashed up, Mr Mills asserted, arguing that such ownership helped fund something in a community, such as a shop.

The financial services problem was now where to store money for retirement, after the recent economic crisis, Mr Mills argued. There was a financial services need to invest in projects such as green energy with money saved for retirement, Mr Mills insisted. He called on the banking industry to set out ISAs along these lines.

Changes next year would enable people to be issued new types of shares in cooperatives, allowing for investment in such projects, Mr Mills went on to state. Pilot projects were needed in order to show what could be achieved in buying energy communally, he added, insisting that people had to be told about these changes.

Labour PPC for Totnes, Carole Whitty, praised the recognition of transition towns. She asked why early adopters of renewable energy were being penalised because of the higher rate of energy after feed-in tariffs would come into effect.

On planning, Ms Ruddock stated that the local government framework had set out reforms to the planning system. There had to be an energy mix, the Minister argued, responding to claims from the floor that renewable energy would never generate enough electricity.

A reliance just on nuclear power was a very centralised solution and an energy mix was essential to provide a number of approaches, Ms Ruddock asserted.

On water and critical mass, Ms Ruddock stated that this area could benefit from the challenge fund.

Local authorities should be flexible enough to allow for community ownership, trusting communities, Mr Goulbourne asserted.

A representative of Community Energy Direct asserted that most district heating schemes were destroyed when compulsory competitive tendering was introduced.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27friedman.html?_r=1