How to ensure investment in energy efficiency…and how not to

negawatts_WEB_AW-1The government is looking at ways for the forthcoming Energy Bill not only to drive investment in new sources of low carbon power but also to pay for much needed investment in energy efficiency. There are different ways this could be done but the government’s lead option is to enable energy efficiency projects to take part in a new capacity market aimed at making sure we have enough electricity generating capacity to keep the lights on.

At first glance this is a welcome step. It would ensure that, to maintain security of supply as well as investing in new power stations, we also invest in ways to reduce electricity demand. However, there are serious pitfalls with this route and a danger of missing the huge opportunity energy efficiency presents to help the UK meet its energy demand and secure supply.

Today, Green Alliance has sent a joint letter (with The Co-operative, the Association for the Conservation of Energy, WWF and University of Oxford energy expert Dr Nick Eyre) to DECC Secretary of State Ed Davey, urging the government to think again on energy efficiency.

What’s wrong with the government’s energy saving proposal?
Our letter outlines three significant problems with using the capacity market as the main form of support for electricity saving:

   1. It won’t provide enough money
We estimate that reducing electricity demand by a further ten per cent – well within the range that government considers possible – would require investment in the region of £1 billion a year. Energy efficiency has been included in other capacity markets and experience from the US shows that, at best, it receives only three per cent of the auction money. Given that the government only expects the entire capacity market to provide £1 billion a year, this would mean that energy efficiency wouldn’t get the funding it needs and deserves.

   2. It won’t properly reward energy saving
The capacity mechanism is designed to reward flexible resources that can help out when the power system is under stress. This currently tends to be at periods of high demand eg 5pm on a cold winter’s night. However, efficiency projects reduce electricity consumption at other times too. Some may not help with reducing the pressure at peak times but are still worthwhile, eg more efficient air conditioning. Only rewarding projects for reducing peak demand, not for the energy they save all year round, undervalues the contribution energy saving can make to wider energy supply and security issues.

   3. It doesn’t provide enough certainty for energy saving business
The final design of the capacity market is still being ironed out and it will be some time before the new market will start operating and we know how much capacity it needs to buy, let alone what sort of price bidders are likely to be paid. Relying on such an uncertain income stream is a hopeless way to encourage and give confidence to new energy saving businesses.

The better alternative
The alternative option, a simple feed-in tariff that would pay people a predictable amount per unit of electricity they saved, would be much more accessible and would be more likely to release the huge potential for electricity saving in our homes, offices, hospitals and factories. There’s a big prize at stake: reducing electricity waste would reduce the number of new power stations we need to build, thereby reducing the UK’s reliance on imported fossil fuels and lowering our electricity bills. We should be sure to pick the option likely to deliver the most significant savings and to launch a new wave of energy saving enterprise.

2 comments

  • With a feed-in tariff, we have a meter to measure what comes in from our solar pv panels or wind turbine, but how would it measure savings in use of electricity from the grid? I’ve read the detailed Q&A and think you need a different term for an arrangement that provides a financial incentive to purchase more energy-efficient white goods or improve insulation. How about “Energy Efficiency Incentive”? Calling it an energy efficiency feed-in tariff is just going to confuse people by mixing it up with something which incentivises generation systems which feed energy in to the grid.

    • We use the term feed-in tariff as it is something that is familiar to lots of people and helps people understand the concept. The government uses the term ‘electricity efficiency premium payment’ but whatever you call it the main thing is to ensure you create a simple mechanism that is available to a wide range of electricity users. Given that most heating systems aren’t run on electricity, it would be unlikely to include insulation at this stage.

      Measuring energy saving is indeed more complicated than monitoring the output of a renewable generator however protocols have been developed that enable us to establish baselines and accurately measure savings. We currently have a supplier energy efficiency obligation that is based on purely theoretical savings so this would be an distinct improvement on existing policy. There is also going to be a trade off between spending lots of resources on monitoring and reporting and actually investing in energy efficiency.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s