Site search:
-
What’s new?
Energy for London Tags
Brent Buildings Camden Carbon Emissions CHP Cities Climate Adaptation Community Heating Community Initiatives Croydon Data DECC Decentralised Energy Distribution ECO Energy Costs Energy Efficiency Enfield FIT Fuel Poverty Funding Green Deal Hackney Haringey Housing Islington Lambeth Library Local Authorities Mayor Newham Ofgem Olympics Photovoltaics Planning RE:FIT RE:NEW Renewable Energy Retrofit Southwark Tower Hamlets Transport Waltham Forest Waste WestminsterEnergy Archives:
- February 2021 (1)
- January 2021 (15)
- December 2020 (15)
- November 2020 (9)
- October 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (5)
- July 2020 (3)
- June 2020 (4)
- April 2020 (10)
- March 2020 (5)
- February 2020 (2)
- January 2020 (3)
- October 2019 (1)
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (2)
- July 2019 (1)
- August 2018 (1)
- November 2016 (8)
- October 2016 (8)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (8)
- July 2016 (14)
- April 2016 (12)
- March 2016 (16)
- February 2016 (8)
- January 2016 (4)
- December 2015 (1)
- November 2015 (1)
- October 2015 (16)
- September 2015 (3)
- June 2015 (1)
- May 2015 (1)
- April 2015 (1)
- March 2015 (1)
- February 2015 (1)
- January 2015 (1)
- December 2014 (18)
- November 2014 (4)
- August 2014 (8)
- July 2014 (7)
- June 2014 (25)
- May 2014 (8)
- April 2014 (4)
- March 2014 (12)
- February 2014 (7)
- January 2014 (13)
- December 2013 (11)
- November 2013 (15)
- October 2013 (15)
- September 2013 (18)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (20)
- June 2013 (33)
- May 2013 (8)
- April 2013 (16)
- March 2013 (25)
- February 2013 (14)
- January 2013 (20)
- December 2012 (23)
- November 2012 (23)
- October 2012 (25)
- September 2012 (14)
- July 2012 (12)
- June 2012 (43)
- May 2012 (20)
- April 2012 (8)
- March 2012 (40)
- February 2012 (39)
- January 2012 (40)
- December 2011 (22)
- November 2011 (40)
- October 2011 (33)
- September 2011 (48)
- August 2011 (40)
- July 2011 (58)
- June 2011 (41)
- May 2011 (80)
- April 2011 (38)
- March 2011 (33)
- February 2011 (25)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (3)
- November 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (7)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (2)
- June 2010 (4)
- May 2010 (1)
- March 2010 (3)
- February 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (3)
- June 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- February 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (1)
- December 2008 (2)
- October 2008 (1)
- September 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (1)
- March 2008 (2)
- January 2008 (2)
- October 2007 (1)
- September 2007 (3)
- July 2007 (1)
- March 2007 (1)
- February 2007 (3)
- November 2006 (3)
- August 2006 (1)
- February 2006 (1)
- May 2005 (1)
- February 2004 (1)
Tag Archives: DECC
New definition will push up the incidence of fuel poverty in London
March 2012: The final report from Prof. John Hills has just been published, which provides a series of recommendations to Government in relation to amending the current definition of fuel poverty. The detail behind this study has been covered in some previous posts (see here) but a key output is to recommend that “Government should measure incomes for fuel poverty purposes after housing costs and adjusted for household size and composition.” As a result, the report’s revised indicator (to replace the Government’s current fuel poverty definition) – the LIHC (Low Income High Costs) – “finds that London households account for a greater proportion of fuel poor households than the official indicator.”
The report is vitally important to the debate on how we define future policies to tackle fuel poverty, and will have impacts on framing of the forthcoming Energy Company Obligation (ECO) and the Green Deal.
Links to the report and supplementary material follow below:
- Final report of the Fuel Poverty Review by John Hills – Getting the measure of fuel poverty and also the
- Hills Review Final Report Press Notice
- DECC’s press notice
- Getting the measure of fuel poverty: summary and recommendations
- Data used to produce charts for the final report of the Fuel Poverty Review (Excel file)
- Professor Hills’ presentation on the final report: Getting the measure of fuel poverty (Powerpoint – 5MB)
Community Energy Online Updated
16 February 2012: DECC announced yesterday that it has been revising its Community Energy Portal with updated content on the following web pages:
Converting English Housing Survey Data for Use in Energy Models
February 2012: Before data from the English Housing Survey can be used in a SAP‐based model like the Cambridge Housing Model (CHM), it has to be both cleaned and converted to align it with the inputs needed for SAP. A sequence of conversions is needed, and this document summarises an approach to such conversions.This document is necessarily detailed and technical. It will interest readers who have themselves worked with the EHS to do stock modelling work. Other people may be more interested in the outcomes of this modelling work, including Energy Consumption in the UK. Download report here.
Five London Community Energy projects awarded Government funding
16 January 2012: DECC today announced the first 82 local energy projects to win funding from the new £10m Local Energy Assessment Fund (LEAF). Five projects in London were selected:
- Brixton Energy
- Community Education Forum Fulham
- The HEET Project
- The Sustainable Home Survey Company CIC
- Transition Town Peckham
- Waterloo Community Development Group
Congratulations all!
Posted in Library, News, Uncategorized
Tagged Community Initiatives, DECC, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, Southwark
Leave a comment
Latest FIT statistics for London
9 January 2012: Ofgem have just produced their latest quarterly detailed spreadsheet providing data on FIT installations across the UK. The spreadsheet now documents information on an impressive 147,114 entries of schemes installed across the UK since the beginning of the scheme!
Filtering the Ofgem spreadsheet to provide London-only data highlights that:
- 4,053 FIT schemes are installed in London as at 31 December 2011 (2.75% of the total UK schemes installed)
- These represent a total of 11.2 MW of electricity capacity installed
Additionally – the latest update on the number of photovoltaics (PVs) installed nationally (a regional breakdown not provided) is available via DECC’s weeks PV statistics (dated 5 January 2012). The 16 December deadline date set by Government – after which installations would face a major reduction in the subsidy support from the FIT mechanism – clearly had a dramatic effect as the graph from the statistics illustrates:
Major London Renewable Energy Study Published
January 2012: As part of a series of DECC-funded regional renewable energy (RE) assessments, the GLA have just published a detailed study on the potential for renewable and low carbon energy in Greater London.
The report sets out results using DECC’s standardised renewable energy assessment methodology but has also developed second tailored methodology to take into account the highly urbanised nature of London, looking at opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions utilising low-carbon decentralised energy (DE) systems such as gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) and the use of waste heat from power stations. The tailored methodology also gives significantly greater estimates of the technical potential for certain types of RE than the DECC methodology, such as commercial scale wind turbines and photovoltaics but – importantly – the greater use of DE displaces “80% of the thermal microgeneration RE sources… based on the assumption that policies which strongly favour DE over other energy sources are required to reach high levels of heat network deployment.”
The results of this study suggest that:
- Under the DECC methodology, up to 12% and 57% of London’s consumption of electricity and heating respectively can technically be met by RE sources from within Greater London
- However the tailored methodology- for reasons detailed above – estimates RE sources can technically supply up to 34% and 49% of electricity and heating respectively (the lower RE heating figure arising out the increased use of low carbon DE heat displacing some RE heating technologies in the ‘tailored’ methodology).
- The combined technical potential for RE and DE is up to 53% and 44% of London’s consumption of electricity and heating respectively.
- The technical potential of DE using large-scale heat networks is 20% of London’s energy supply
- It is estimated that around 450MW of waste heat capacity is available from existing power stations and energy from waste (EfW) plants in the London area
The London Decentralised Energy Capacity Study can be downloaded here and comprises three reports:
- Phase 1: Technical Assessment
- Phase 2: Deployment Potential
- Phase 3: Roadmap to Deployment
Some significant datasets lie behind the study and can be downloaded from the London Datastore here.
Posted in Data Store, Library, News
Tagged DECC, Decentralised Energy, Library, Mayor, Renewable Energy
Leave a comment
Background to the Climate Change Committee Study of LA emission savings
November 2011: A previous entry noted the announcement by DECC that the Climate Change Committee (CCC) were to help provide DECC with guidance on how local authorities could curb greenhouse gas emissions. No key information has been published as yet by the CCC on the study, however, what follows below is some background correspondence between DECC and the CCC on the basis of the study:
– Letter from Minister for Energy Greg Barker to Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the CCC (13 June 2011) which states that DECC are “thinking of is benchmark advice on the scale of ambition that LAs may set themselves, possible approaches to deliver that ambition and how this would contribute to national carbon budgets.”
– CCC responded (24 June) saying that they “agree [d] that there is a potentially important role for LAs, particularly as regards energy efficiency improvement in buildings and promotion of sustainable transport, and also as regards renewable electricity and heat generation.”
– DECC Ministerial response (21 July)
– Following a meeting in mid – September CCC came back to DECC (28 September) setting out the four elements of the study and requested support from DECC and the LGA
– A Final letter from Greg Barker back to CCC (25 October) which amends the elements proposed by CCC stating that DECC are looking for “consideration of the local factors and circumstances that local authorities might wish to take into account when deciding on the approaches to adopt”. DECC further state that they need the work to be completed by the end of April 2012 “to ensure it can be fed into the permissive guidance for local authorites that CLG (the Department for Communities) is producing.” The guidance referred to is in relation to the revised Home and Energy Conservation Act (HECA) – originally to be repealed in the Energy Act 2011, until a volte face from Government.
DECC list of Energy Data Resources
November 2011: DECC have just posted a “List of datasets that contain information on energy generation, transport, area wide emissions and buildings at UK and regional/local level”. This is an EXCELLENT and comprehensive list of links to energy data ranging from heat maps, decentralised energy plant, energy consumption data and lots of transport related statistics. A really valuable spreadsheet resource worth downloading. In case link doesn’t work in the future – the document can also be downloaded here.
FIT reduction – A brief guide for councils and communities
The Hills Fuel Poverty Review
October 2011: Professor John Hill’s interim report ‘Fuel Poverty: The Problem and its measurement’ was published last week and is an independent review, commissioned by the Government, “to take a fresh look at the fuel poverty target and definition”.
The document presents a very thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the issue of fuel poverty and sets out at the very beginning that the evidence taken for the review shows that fuel poverty is a “distinct – and serious – problem.”
The report looks at the problems associated with the current definition (listed on pages 13 and 14) which defines a household as being in fuel poverty if it would need to spend more than 10 per cent of its income to achieve an ‘adequate’ level of warmth through the year and on other energy costs. As an example, a key issue includes the fact that the 10 per cent figure “is derived from an original calculation that in 1988 the median household spent 5 per cent of its net income on fuel, and that twice this ration might be taken as ‘unreasonable'”
As a result of these shortcomings, the report goes on to consider six other potential ways of measuring fuel poverty. The first of these is key to London which is to look at the costs of energy to a household ‘after housing costs’ are taken into consideration rather than on ‘full income’, as is currently the case with the present definition. Taking this route, the report states that the “higher housing costs in London mean that this region accounts for a higher proportion of households identified under this indicator.” [page 123]. (see here for further details on this issue).
Though each of the six new approaches have advantages, there are also problems associated with them. Hence, the final indicator opted for by the Hills Review team (as set out in Chapter 7 of the report) is a combination of two of the six approaches called the ‘Low Income – High Costs’ indicator and – importantly for London – it uses an after houses cost measure of income.
The result of using such a definition results in the number of fuel poor households in England falling from around 4 million under the current definition, to 2.7m. Much of the press coverage around the report highlighted how such a result was politically convenient to the Government, however, the new indicator highlights that there remains both a significant and stable number of fuel poor households in England which has not been reduced, despite the wide number of energy efficiency programmes in operation over the past decade (CERT, CESP, Warm Front, Decent Homes etc), and that the target set out in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, to eradicate fuel poverty as far as reasonably practicable, is far from being achieved. Additionally, Prof Hill highlights that much more needs to be done by Government tackle the ‘scandalous’ level of Excess Winter Deaths (EWD) of around 2,700 each year as a result of fuel poverty, as set out in the report.
The interim report has been released for consultation with a final report to be presented to DECC around January which will then be published more widely shortly after this. This final report will also provide potential policy proposals from the Hill team.
An additional issue, not touched on in the report, is the introduction by Government of the Affordable Rent Model as a new mechanism to fund the building of new social housing. The result of such a policy will increase rents to social tenants – especially in London – when signing new contracts with their provider (as highlighted earlier this year in the London Assembly’s report ‘The Affordable Rent Model and its implications for London’) which in turn will have implications on the number of fuel poor in London as a result of the new indicator taking into account housing costs.
No regional breakdown of this revised number of fuel poor is provided in the interim report – to find out if this shift to increasing the number of fuel poor in London actually happens under the newly defined indicator – but hopefully will be in the final study…
More challenging times for renewables in London?
21 October 2011: The Government’s proposals for future Renewable Obligation (RO) banding levels for different renewable electricity levels have been published today for consultation. The bands set the level of subsidy provided through granting Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) – awarded per MWh (megawatt-hour) of electricity generated – and range from 0.5 ROCs to 2 ROCs per MWh depending on the technology. The ROCs programme runs in tandem to the Feed in Tariffs (FIT) mechanism but is applicable to larger renewable technologies, generally above 5MW capacity.
The consultation moves to providing longer term guidance on the levels of support available to renewable generators whilst also reducing the levels of ROCs support awarded to many technologies and also introducing an element of regression as in the FIT regime (ie a percentage reduction to the levels of support year on year).
Progress on developing larger renewable energy projects in London has been incredibly slow, with only a few notable schemes based around the use of sewage gas at water treatment plant, the capture of landfill gas, and single larger-scale wind project.
DECC’s proposals will do little to help and potentially much to hinder the situation for London. Key renewable technologies being supported for London such as advanced gasification and pyrolysis are to have their levels of support reduced (see Table 2 of the consultation paper for the full list of specific proposals). These are already high risk projects and hence this will do little to get these nascent technologies off the ground. Ditto for urban-based anaerobic digestion plant which are also having their levels of support reduced.
Similarly reducing support to energy from waste CHP without clarifying the level of Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) tariff that might also be available will do little to inspire confidence in operators considering converting their plant to CHP mode and investing in new district heating infrastructure. Cities are already severely limited in their ability to contribute to the UK’s ambitious renewable energy targets: waste does however provide a key opportunity but project costs are typically much higher due to land value amongst many other factors.
More needs to be done to support the growth of renewables in London and other cities to exploit opportunities to deliver low carbon heat and power to their communities. Government should perhaps consider introducing a ‘ROC uplift’ for urban based schemes to help bring these more challenging city renewable schemes forward – that is – an additional 0.5 to 1.0 ROCs for those schemes developed in cities, with a priority given to those that deliver decentralised heat networks as part of their scheme.