Using behaviour change to deliver the low carbon agenda… easier said than done.

Published on December 3, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

Even with increasing levels of environmental awareness, it seems there’s a bit of inertia when it comes to following up with responsible action.  Which is why the presentation by John Adlen from Staffordshire University at this weeks Govtoday Carbon Reduction Conference was so inspiring.  It showed some really interesting approaches for behaviour change.

He explained that a lot of our inabilities to act were down to the hassle factor. It is common knowledge that most people are set in their own ways and lifestyles. Which means it seems like a challenge to change people’s habits. If changing behaviour seems like a hassle, it will be difficult to change behaviours to deliver the low carbon agenda.

Considering a ‘fun’ approach could work better. An innovation by Volkswagen called thefuntheory.com believes that “something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better”.

They have embarked on a number of projects to prove this theory. They applied the fun theory to every environmentally friendly innovation they made. One project that aimed at encouraging a higher uptake of recycling of glass is a great example. As you can see here the inventors decided to make a glass recycling bank appear more fun for the public, to change attitudes and encourage a higher uptake of glass recycling. They ‘pimped’ a bottle bank into an arcade machine, bringing an element of fun into recycling. The success of the project speaks for itself. Volkswagen believe that people will act responsibly and greener if they have fun while doing it.

Could introducing fun aspects into the low carbon agenda be the missing piece of the low carbon agenda puzzle?

Lots of fun examples of behaviour change projects at thefuntheory.com

You wait for ages…

Published on November 8, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

… for a policy announcement and then three come along at once.

The last post featuring the ROC review was the first and then a short time later, the newly-tweaked RHI programme was announced, having now cleared State Aid hurdles with newly reduced rates for large scale biomass.  In general both the ROC review and the RHI announcements were met with positive feedback from those affected.  Of course, nothing’s perfect and there were some criticisms of levels and process, but overall it was all looking relatively rosy.

Then last week (pre-empted it has to be said by a couple of days of rumours and leaks) the government announced the new feed-in tariff level for solar and things stopped looking so rosy.  The solar tariff was slashed by almost 50% and the cut is to take effect from December – even before the consultation has finished.  Leaving aside that particular peculiarity (Friends of the Earth are challenging that), the response from the solar industry has been unequivocal.  Solar companies, installers and communities are aghast that investments made will be for nought and that the bottom will fall out of the solar market.  Already solar companies have frozen staff recruitment and are considering reductions.  The open letter to David Cameron by Jeremy Leggett sums up the issues the industry is facing.  How can projects in the pipeline, modelled on the basis of one tariff reach completion and be online in six weeks?

Unfortunately, the announcement also had an impact on amazing community projects like Brighton Energy Co-Op - a share issue has had to be shelved and projects are at risk.  Such a shame given the enormous amount of work that the team there had put in to getting projects done and community benefit realised.

There was a sense that the FITs were set at too generous a level – the dash for rooftops was sensational and had all the trademarks of people getting rich fast.  Add that to energy prices and the prospect of unpopular higher bills and the FITs were an easy target.  This has of course been ample fodder for the eco-hating press and the “squeezed middle classes” but a distinct lack of foresight as to what happens when energy prices creep higher still and we don’t have the renewable energy resources that might have insulated us from energy shocks.  Not to mention the growth of a new industry and the job creation that has resulted.  No mention of the social housing and community projects that are now jeopardised.   While a cut was to be expected, a cut as drastic as this has signalled an inevitable bust following the boom.

This is one to watch.  It has been amazing to see the campaign in response to this announcement gain momentum.  In the meantime, for further updates, check out @OurSolarFuture on twitter for latest updates and links to articles and commentary.  We’ll keep you posted here on developments and for anyone wishing to discuss possible impacts, please do get in touch.

ROC Banding Review – At last!

Published on October 21, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

And as if Nick and Chris were reading this blog (unlikely), yesterday say DECC take some positive steps along the road to restoring investor confidence in the UK renewables sector with the launch of the ROC rebanding review.

Although inevitable winners and losers, what is interesting is that there does seem to have been a genuine attempt to set the bands at levels appropriate to encourage new technology.  Tidal stream and wave power, two technologies where the UK should be leading, see incentives rise significantly.  Will it be enough to bring investment into these sectors?  ROC levels for offshore wind have not as some speculated been slashed – merely a gradual decrease over time.   This approach reflects the current challenges for offshore construction but at the same time recognises that established processes should (in theory) result in reductions in capital costs.

Now it’s over to the economists and analysts to consider whether the Government proposals are (excuse the pun) on the money.  With investment opportunities in renewables across Europe, the Government needs to get the levels right lest investment be tempted elsewhere.

Details of the new levels can be found here and the consultation on the proposed levels is now open and runs until 12 January.  For all interested parties, this is an opportunity to put across views on the Government’s proposals and to shape the future of renewables for the future.  Colbha Consulting is available to discuss the new banding proposals if you have any concerns and we offer a consultation response service – please contact Mary for further details.

Dear Government…

Published on October 18, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , .

Dear Dave, Nick, George, Chris, Vince etc.

I had high hopes for you lot.  I genuinely thought that a coalition government might be a good thing for the environment. You Tories had even rebranded with a tree, talked big about dealing with climate change, and all that blue and gold making green stuff, well, I guess I believed it.  Should have known better really.

Because of course, governments are elected for five years not fifty.  Dealing with climate change, energy security and environmental protection needs a long term strategy.  But that won’t win you votes or get you re-elected in a couple of years will it?  So you’ve obviously chosen the path of least resistance and I suppose I really shouldn’t be surprised.

But in case you do decide to take stock and do the right thing, here are a couple of pointers…

  1. Energy Bills are getting bigger for lots of reasons – don’t just blame the cost of dealing with climate change.  Prices on the wholesale market are on the increase and when the UK is reliant on fossil fuels from unstable regimes, we cannot be insulated from world events.
  2. Energy companies are not the bad guys – privatised industries have to make money for their shareholders and it is private companies that will fund the green economy, invest in the future and generate employment when the government won’t.  Thinking energy company profits are excessive and then not saying the same about the banks is just selective blindness my friends.
  3. The green economy is an opportunity not an obstacle – if you want to create jobs and grow the economy, how about promoting investment in a new sector that benefits not just the economy, but society and the environment as well.
  4. Investor confidence is key – government consistently tinkers with legislative incentives and fails to release information in a timely manner.  We’re still waiting for news of ROC re-banding and the RHI.  I won’t even go near the feed-in tariff, you already know my thoughts on that.  Investment decisions are taken years in advance of projects coming on line.  Perhaps you might like to take that into consideration when you let the economists loose on another market reform.
  5. The cost of not dealing with climate change will be significantly greater than the cost of failing to do so.  Ask Lord Stern.
  6. Britain has always been (or at least tried to be) a leader.  You’ve just missed the point entirely.
So not it’s a case of getting on with the job now in spite of your actions.  Mother Earth is a benevolent soul but alas even she can’t halt the nature of climate change while you lot sort out the economy and pander to your electorate.
Good luck with the legacy guys.

PlanetSolar’s Epic Adventure

Published on August 16, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Photo: Alex Hofford/EPA

Now there are many things I like about this.  I’d quite happily spend my days lounging around on the water. Thanks to a fantastic year in Hong Kong in 2001, Hong Kong remains one of my favourite places on earth and surely the most spectacular harbour view in the world.  And then of course, there’s the renewable energy – doing something different and fun with solar panels, showing the enormous potential that exists and the fact that we don’t need to be tied to fossil fuels. Powering a boat around the world using only the sun?  Brilliant.  I think I might miss the sails, but what an amazing achievement.  And what potential, what a way to capture people’s imagination about sustainable energy.

Except that this isn’t a story that’s been picked up by the mainstream media (other than the Guardian which as we all know is greener than the rest).  A quick search of google (other search engines are available) found a mere 34 articles on this amazing story.  A search for the new series of Big Brother turned up 161 articles.  Sad but true.  Nearly all the stories about PlanetSolar are in the “green” media – specialist environmental magazines and blogs.
How can we inspire a generation to embrace the revolution if we keep amazing stories like this buried in small sections of the media?

So I have a plan, I’d like the next series of Big Brother to be set on PlanetSolar, let the housemates become shipmates and let’s see them head off round the world being powered by the sun.  Who knows, you might even see solar panels in the Daily Mail at that rate.  Now that really would be a turn up for the books.

Reduce Re-Use Recycle – Ofgem says no

Published on August 4, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

Perhaps one of the best known mantras that have come from the environmental sector over the last couple of years has been the “Reduce Re-Use Recycle”, synonymous with the campaign to reduce waste and manage resources.  However, it seems that this doesn’t apply to renewable energy…

This is an interesting article from Utility Week which highlights the issue that using second hand equipment on renewable energy generation may disqualify said project from qualifying for the feed-in tariffs.  The logic behind the move is that the feed-in tariff is designed to promote “new” renewables generation and at least some secondhand equipment may have previously benefitted from other subsidies which were previously available.

This is a tricky one.  On the one hand, the motivation behind the feed-in tariff needs to be respected – if it isn’t then there could just be an endless re-use of equipment meaning funding could be going to the same projects in different guises over and over again, making it possible to profiteer from the same equipment used over and over again.  Equally, the lower costs associated with secondhand equipment should mean that projects don’t need the same level of subsidies that “new” equipment does to make it viable.

That said, it is a strange paradox when a renewable energy generation project that has a lower embedded carbon footprint does not qualify for the same subsidies as projects where everything is “new”.  Capital costs associated with projects are still extremely high and to the point it’s possible to lower costs by re-using equipment, then surely this should be encouraged – especially if it’s a situation where the equipment would otherwise go to waste or the project would otherwise fail to be economically viable.

The UK has a mountain to climb to meet its renewable energy targets and we should be doing everything we can to be bringing renewables online as quickly and as efficiently as possible.  If the use of refurbished meter could make a project ineligible for feed-in tariffs, there are very mixed messages coming as to how much we want renewables as part of our energy market.

Ofgem are currently consulting on the extent to which ancillary equipment can be reused and whether this would make projects ineligible for feed-in tariffs.  You can find the consultation here.

Fuel Poverty Revealed

Published on July 19, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. Closed Tags: , , , , , .

Every so often one comes across a statistic that pauses one to stop in their tracks.  Yesterday was one of those days for me when I read an article containing DECC statistics that there were 5.5 million homes in the UK in fuel poverty in 2009.  This is staggering.  And all the more staggering because there have been numerous energy price hikes since 2009 – and more will take effect in time for this winter.  So this number could already be a lot higher.

Fuel poverty is calculated by reference to the amount spent on fuel as a percentage of the total income.  Anything more than 10% and that household is considered to be fuel poor.

It is a saddening statistic because the people who are likely to be suffering from fuel poverty tend to be harder to reach in terms of bring about energy efficiency projects or community generation – so the people who could benefit most are less likely to be involved.  Last week, a report published by the London Sustainability Exchange highlighted ways in which “hardly reached communities” can be engaged on environmental issues.  At the launch event it was clear that reaching such communities is a real challenge but should be a priority, especially as the impact of projects can really be huge – especially if it elevates people from fuel poverty.

Both the LSx event and the DECC figures really drive home the need to deal with energy issues at a local level – and not just because it makes good environmental sense but because there are some concrete social and economic benefits to be had.   Colbha Consulting is working hard to make a difference in this area with the Capital Community Energy Project as one of the strands of this work.   So a timely reminder of how important it is to be involved in this area of energy development.

Reforming the Markets

Published on July 14, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , .

In the last couple of days, buried somewhere among the most unsavoury of press-related-hacking headlines, you might have seen the release of the Government’s Electricity Market Reform proposals and the Renewables Roadmap.  I won’t be able to do the full 170 odd pages justice in a blog post (and there are many that will provide a much better summary than I ever could) but the headlines include a carbon price floor, a new incentive based on a feed-in tariff with a contract for difference and emissions performance standard to promote coalfired powerstations with CCS or gas-fired powered generation facilities.

Already, there are a lot of misgivings.  The carbon floor price will benefit electricity generators with existing nuclear portfolios, I’ve yet to meet anyone who favoured the CfD approach and the emissions performance standard could drive a new dash for gas.

I often use the analogy in presentations that developing a project is a bit like putting a jigsaw together.  If that’s the case, then government reform can sometimes be akin to someone shaking the table on which you’re trying to construct your jigsaw.  Investors, more than ever, want to be confident in a strong and stable regulatory regime against which investment can be made.  While it’s arguable that in the face of climate change and energy security woes, we need an overhaul of the electricity markets, done badly it will have the effect of undermining investor confidence and hindering investment which is so badly needed.

A genuinely fascinating time to be involved in this sector.  Potentially a genuinely frustrating time too.

Government Eclipses Solar Aspirations

Published on June 10, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

In a disappointing but not wholly unexpected development, DECC yesterday announced new levels of FITS as a result of its fast track review announced last February.

In making the announcement, Rt Hon Chris Huhne stated: “We have carefully considered the evidence that has been presented as part of the consultation and this has reinforced my conviction of the need to make changes as a matter of urgency. Without action the scheme would be overwhelmed.  The new tariffs will ensure a sustained growth path for the solar industry while protecting the money for householders, small businesses and communities and will also further encourage the uptake of green electricity from anaerobic digestion.”

Levels of support for solar over 50kW have been dramatically reduced and this will tip many projects from the viable to the non-viable.   In referencing communities, Chris Huhne neglects to mention the hundreds if not thousands of community solar schemes above the 50kW limit which will now either be scaled back or abandoned.

Greenest government ever?  That’s certainly not the sentiment today.

I know things that are worth having are worth working for, but it would perhaps be nice for a self-declared green government to make life a little easier for those projects seeking to green the economy, promote local enterprise and regenerate communities.

Green Investment Bank – will it live up to the hype?

Published on May 29, 2011 in Colbha Consulting News. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

There’s been talk of the Green Investment Bank for a significant amount of time – it’s enshrined in the Coalition Agreement of 2010 and it’s wheeled out every time a government minister gets a challenge on how we will grow the green economy.  So it’s appropriate that after the government signs up to even more stringent carbon emissions it finally starts to flesh out the proposal for the Green Investment Bank.

Monday 23rd saw Climate Change Capital host an Event called “Creating a Sustainable Economic Recovery” at which Deputy Prime Minister Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg MP gave more details of what the Green Investment Bank might look like.  The plan is fairly straightforward insofar as it will be established by legislation as an independent, enduring institution, be capitalised with £3billion of government funds and making investments by April 2012, with the ability to borrow in April 2015.

Listening to the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday, I was struck by a couple of things.  Firstly, the fact that there was such a senior member of government launching this kind of institution does indeed give confidence that this isn’t some kind of “by the way” project of this administration.  The second, that the idea of a Green Investment Bank, now so much used in common parlance in the industry, really did seem unthinkable not that many years ago.  Thirdly, that £3billion in austere times is not to be sniffed at even if it is a mere drop in the ocean of what will be needed.

But the main thing that struck me was the lack of detail, the lack of ambition and the lack of vision.  There is a real risk that an institution such as this could just become a “soft” option, funding projects which frankly should be capable of being funded by commercial debt.   If the future is to be green, then every investment bank needs to be a green one.  Nick Clegg talked about the Green Investment Bank funding offshore wind projects.  Admittedly, offshore wind carries risk, but is it really risk that cannot be funded by commercial banks in the same way that they got comfortable funding offshore oil and gas and pipelines?   Will the Green Investment Bank offer more competitive lending rates than “traditional” banks would?  If so, then let’s see what impact it will have but that wasn’t the message with which I left Monday’s event.

What we need the Green Investment Bank needs to do is act as a leader in the financing of green projects that really are cutting edge – technology or companies that might not tick all the boxes for the commercial banks’ credit committees.  If the government’s self-imposed targets (a good thing) are to be met, then financial institutions including the Green Investment Bank need to show some vision and some ambition.  Otherwise, when we miss the targets we’ve set ourselves, we’ll be doing a post mortem of what might have been had we had the vision to invest in genuinely innovative routes.

I’m not sure that a banking institution created by legislation and funded for at least 3 years by Treasury is really the type of institution that will be comfortable with taking financial risks on innovative projects.  However, as the potential consequences of failing to take risks could be significantly greater than any of us know, I genuinely hope it proves me wrong.