An Evening with the Deputy Mayor for the Environment: Discussion Notes
Zero Carbon and Keeping within 1.5˚C
Facilitator: Chris Grainger
Opening statement from Chris Grainger of the GLA:
The GLA is currently working towards how to get to Zero Carbon. We are on track pretty much now. We are using 1990 as the baseline for emissions. We have now reduced emissions by 16% from 1990 levels. Most of this comes from the national decarbonisation of the energy grid. We are still reducing greatly for the same region. The national energy grid changes reduce emissions a further 30% from 1990 and the next 40% can come through Mayoral strategies. This leaves about 10% that may have to come from offsetting. Where the tipping point for that remains to be seen.
Regarding offsetting. Onshore wind is very cost effective, however there is not much opportunity for it in London. Could you do a deal with somewhere elsewhere to offset London emissions?
Onshore wind doesn’t make much sense in London. If it was part of an offset scheme then offshore would likely be the source.
In the short term, it is about what we can do in London. There are cheap wins. Like considering demand reduction. There is a tipping point when it is too expensive to invest in London and offset is considered.
How much street lighting is LED?
The GLA doesn’t know, lighting is controlled by boroughs.
I have noticed that they are coming into the new builds.
Yes, LED street lights are an easy win. Boroughs are keen on implementing it.
Is this linked to light pollution? Is there a need to look at lowering the amount of light in London? Do we need street lights on all the time?
The police advise you to leave the lights on.
What is good about an integrated environment strategy is that it allows us to look at stuff like this.
With all the infrastructure being built. What about subsidising solar panels for housing being built and that has already been built?
Solar is already subsidised. This subsidy is decreasing as the cost of solar reduces. This is the point of the feed-in tariff. Solar is moving towards cost-parity with other sources. The price of panels has dropped by a factor of 10.
What about listed buildings?
Solar in conservation areas is a key issue to tackle. Throwing money at the problem is not a good idea. However, it is one area that people are keen to look at. Bath has been able to do it successfully. There are several different scenarios for solar.
Solar provides a lot to the end user. However, even if you cover lots of London’s roofs in panels it is insignificant in overall energy use because London is so dense.
But we cannot discount anything.
True. The most important part of zero carbon is understanding the scale of the problem and how to get there.
Have you identified where domestic energy is wasted the most? Is there the potential for information posters and educational materials on domestic energy use?
We can’t get individual information from people’s homes due to data protection issues. We don’t have data at the building level. We have granular data but not building level.
It is difficult to change people’s behaviours though.
Yes, this is why the implementation of smart meters will be helpful.
Could you not study an average household and look into behaviour change from that point of view?
We are aware of what aspects of consumption are particularly costly. This is why Energy for Londoners as a brand is helpful, because it will be able to be a brand that people can trust that will be able to advocate and inform on these issues.
What proportion is electricity and what is gas.
It is about 50:50. Gas is harder to decarbonise. Domestic heat is the big challenge in getting to Zero Carbon. It will be a long process.
Domestic heat is about insulating houses properly. How can we do this?
We do have a retrofit programme. But we do not have the budget for it.
Is there scope for this on private rental?
Central government is bringing in new EPC (energy efficiency) targets that will regulate private rental.
Do you trust these targets?
Yes. They are a good start for buildings. However, it is still a balance between the granular details and general efficiencies that people can understand [They are not 100% accurate]. We are also considering self-financing retrofit programmes. There is not much budget but banks might get interested in self-financing zero carbon retro-fit.
What can we do to address manufacturers? I bought a TV that had a full TV turn off, not just a stand-by setting. But they are difficult to find. If there was more choice around energy efficiency, or support on prices, or targeting of manufacturers or retailers. We need more choice. And better standards for products that make energy efficiency easier from a consumer behaviour perspective.
The power to make change here comes from advocacy that could come through Energy for Londoners. We are not currently working on household goods but with the boiler scrappage scheme we are hoping to move into energy efficient choices.
These appliances are expensive. However, manufacturers are improving and there will be growing consumer pressure through the rise of smart meters.
Little things like leaving the fridge open are huge drains on energy.
Yes, this is why the smart meter is key. However, it needs to go beyond just education.
This is all about the home but what about businesses? What about offices and what is being done to push businesses to be better environmentally?
There is huge wasted energy in businesses. Two of the big schemes that the GLA has are to renew (domestic) and to refit (non-domestic). This latter scheme goes into businesses and suggests energy efficient solutions.
What about business smart meters so employees can see energy use?
We don’t do it directly but the Business Energy Challenge did something similar. However, many businesses in London are doing stuff like this themselves anyway. There has been good uptake on refit, but we are looking to expand it. It has been successful so far.
What about targeting young people so they know about this stuff in their schools and homes?
The GLA doesn’t have authority over schools, but if you build it into the fabric of schools it has symbolic value. Goes for schools and community hubs as well.
This is why we are pushing solar; it has a huge impact on awareness as people can see it.
What is the biggest single thing that needs to be reduced?
Domestic heat. The big question is how to move everyone off a gas boiler and onto a different fuel or onto different heat source. In the future we could move into a tariff structure that might be half hourly as time of use is so important, as is storage as renewables don’t operated all the time.
This is the long-term reason for rolling out smart meters and smart tariffs because it brings people into their usage. Currently this structured by the energy companies. But central government has proposals surrounding this.
In many buildings, all the lights are on overnight, this happens in shops as well. Such a lot of waste. What can be done?
We are all in agreement on this, and this comes into advocacy.
All this has been about advocacy so far. How will the mayor actually de-fossilise the economy, what about the third runway at Heathrow? What about a diesel scrappage? There is embedded energy that is used there as well. What about procurement and forcing boroughs to use environmentally friendly solutions.
Transport and new build are where the GLA has a lot of control. In transport, we have a clear move towards zero carbon. We need people to move from diesel to electric cars. However, this move needs a second had market so you are not forced into spending lots of money to make the switch. This is coming likely by the 2030s. That will allow us to extend the ULEZ [Ultra Low Emissions Zone] so it doesn’t penalise those who don’t want to buy a new car.
What about green financing?
Green financing is getting banks to fund green infrastructure. Banks are looking diversify their investments away from fossil fuels. This means we can take cheap loans without taking taxpayers money by showing we are investing in green stuff.
Couldn’t you issue low interest loans for people looking to get electric cars to bring the ULEZ out faster?
We are looking to building this into part of zero carbon retro fit plans. It has been considered for cars but we don’t have anything specifically at the moment.
What bout HGVs, will companies just stump up the cash to get around the ULEZ?
If that is the case the cash will give us a chance to invest in other things to reduce emissions.
The motorist lobby is always very strong; will they not just shout down these changes?
Sadiq has been very clear that this is very important and something that he has direct remit over.
How can we prevent issues over misinformation over cars, such as claimed emission savings or with London’s busses and their environmental impact?
A good way to avoid this is to avoid locking into technologies that will only give limited savings over time. Being flexible with the technology used gives more opportunity for real reduction.
If a municipal energy supplier was established would it research other fuel sources?
Yes. But we would have to be careful with new fuel markets to make sure it is right for Londoners.
There are things you can influence. But can you lobby, for example, so that in each sector there is real implementation and enforcement. To makes sure changes get done.
We want to focus on what we can do. And we want to lobby through the LES to do these things.
A Clean Energy Future for London – Matthew Thomas
Facilitator: Matthew Thomas
It’s important to look at the discussion notes from the November 2016 workshop ‘A City for All Londoners’ and check how these have been responded to.
As 95% of energy used in London comes from outside the city, there is a reliance on the fossil fuel dominant national grid. To reach zero carbon, there is a need for London to be a heat provider, for the energy generated to be cleaner and greener, and for the infrastructure to be in place for its distribution and use. Though the target for zero carbon is 2050, the implementation plan in the environment strategy will be looking at progress towards this over the next 5-10 years.
London needs to have its own power supply. Could ground sourced heat, much more advanced in many other cities, contribute? There is a concern that this is expensive and so the challenge is to bring down the costs of the heat pumps.
The Mayor needs powers so he can regulate heat networks, including how they operate and by whom. Regulation will help avoid problems of long contracts on high tariffs, like at Myatts Field. How will the Mayor introduce heat regulation?
As well as the use of smart technology in new buildings, attention needs to be paid to retrofit and change of energy use in old buildings which is the majority of the housing stock. This is where community involvement is particularly important.
To generate and supply energy locally regulatory barriers have to be overcome. Supporting local community energy companies is important, so is a public energy company which aims to be cheaper, cleaner, and more democratic. The tariff would need to be cheap and reliable, but accountability and the opportunity to participate would also be part of the package. A question was raised as to how the public energy company would be able to both keep low tariffs and be the best offer for the fuel poor. What would be the role of the public energy company in raising funds for investment in retrofitting? Would the public energy company be able to achieve the customer base it needed to survive in the market?
There were questions about what the London Environment Strategy would be saying on such a public energy company and on progress to date in testing its feasibility. It was felt to be important that the development of the public energy company was both collaborative and transparent.
The 5% of energy generated in London is from renewables. Scaling up raises planning issues about making space, such as space for local small businesses so the energy efficiency sector can grow, space for the storage of renewables, which could mean sub-stations. The growth of the energy efficiency sector is a major opportunity for more jobs.
The Mayor should give best practice guidance on renewables and retrofitting, using and generating locally, managing locally, and therefore bringing money into the local economy. Available to residents associations and civic groups and also to Boroughs who do not always have the capacity and expertise. To encourage the roll out of solar panels, the guidance could include its costs and benefits, encourage the use of solar panels on all public buildings, and the role of planning conditions.
The Mayor must recognise the magnitude of the retrofitting that is needed. With the loss of resources from the Energy Savings Trust, from Warm Front and Re-new, it is important to look at developer contributions. Carbon offsetting allows retrofit and is ring fenced, but many Boroughs are unaware. S106 and CIL should have energy as a much higher infrastructure priority and this could be a policy requirement of the Mayor.
Re-power and community energy companies should be brought in as partners to assist the Boroughs to speed up and to help build local capacity. The Mayor can be the leader that makes this happen, putting resources and networks in place, helping and encouraging community energy groups and local economic partnerships centred on energy efficiency.
Energy from waste is another example where you can be green and save money, so green needs to be moved up the Boroughs agenda by the Mayor.
Green Infrastructure and London’s Green Spaces
Facilitator: Peter Massini
Scale and significance are not universally understood. The totality, as well as individual elements, needs to be better recognised. Nearly half (47%) of London is actually ‘green’ (parks, open spaces gardens etc.) and trees cover a fifth of London’s surface.
There are 45 different bodies that manage land within London. This gives rise to a very complex and fragmented operational, funding and governance situation. Given that the GLA no longer manages parks (unlike the GLA of 1960s/1970s), it depends on ‘policy’ to plan, to resolve issues, and to realise opportunities. Therefore, there are limits to steering environmental measures.
Green Infrastructure (GI), as a term, is not fully understood. It is broad and embraces the network of green spaces and other features, such as street trees, that have natural benefits for healthy living, environmental improvements, flood reduction, and biodiversity amongst other issues.
GI includes the ’Blue Ribbon Network’ (BRN) of rivers and canals. The term ’Blue Green City’ is not used by the GLA; who prefer to use term GI. There is the desirability of increasing the beneficial use of the BRN as contributor to amenity and environment. Go to the Mayoral Transport Strategy consultation to make representations on growing commercial and passenger transport on the BRN. Revealing underground or hidden watercourses well received proven projects with multiple benefits (eg River Quaggy, Lewisham).
The All London Green Grid recognises GI not only as a network of individual spaces but linked together. This is already in place as a planning approach which helps to identify areas deficient or lacking access/routes to open space and places of nature. However, remedying such deficiencies raises resourcing issues.
The London Plan is the overarching spatial strategy dealing with planning. The delivery of measures and projects is done by other agencies and bodies. The current plan sets out policy requirements at the strategic pan-London level and for boroughs and neighbourhoods to follow. The London Environmental Strategy (LES) should inform the London Plan and other strategies on a range of environmental matters.
Concerns have been expressed over the status, quality, and condition of open spaces. The London Plan aims to protect green space consistent with national planning policy and guidance. There is a need to explore how the LES can encourage the protection, enhancement, and maintenance of Green Space beyond the planning powers of the London Plan.
Environmental improvements need to be adequately resourced. The GLA are exploring innovative ways of funding, such as exploiting the potentials of the ‘Green Bond Market’. There are substantial sums of funding available but the programme of projects needs to be at scale (large scale) with promoters of standing (e.g. local government) in order to attract investment by the City financiers. They are providing GI through levies on development (CIL, S106 or new variants) as the environment is not prioritised to the level that other issues, such as transport, are. Housing developments should provide the comprehensive range of facilities that communities need.