More consultation stuff

Here’s an interesting article from the recent issue of Building for a Future. It makes a few good points about the problems of a microgen strategy that isn’t really sure what it means by key phrases like ‘technology-blind’.

The BBC’s also in on the action with a great summary of the situation, especially drawing attention to the problems that the funding gap (i.e. the delay between the end of the existing grant programme and the new Low Carbon Building Programme) might cause for installation firms.

What’s your two cents? Or rather pence

One of the things I find pleasantly surprising in the UK is how open government is when it develops policy. There are always green papers, consultation documents, select committee meetings and other chances to have your say. I haven’t yet figured out how much they change their plans in response to this feedback but it’s nice that they at least go through the motions.

This past year has been a particularly busy for energy consultations, mainly because the 2004 Energy Act required the publication of a microgeneration strategy within 18 months of the Act’s confirmation (i.e. now-ish). But there have also been invitations to comment on the Renewables Obligation and some regulatory issues. Here’s a list of the major recent consultations:

The ECI’s recently done quite a bit of work on these issues and so we were keen to share the results of our research. In particular, the 40% House report revealed that to achieve a 60% cut in CO2 by 2050, two-thirds of the reduction would have to come from reduced demand and one-third from low and zero carbon (LZC) technologies (i.e. microgeneration). Accordingly our responses stressed that any new policies or changes to regulation must set the stage for long-term support of LZC technologies. This doesn’t mean providing subsidies for 50 years but if, for example, the regulations lead to the installation of meters which can only measure electricity flows into the house, it will be extremely difficult to offer microgenerators a fair price for the electricity they will generate and export to the grid.

These consultations are particularly useful to clarify the sometimes vague goals expressed in strategy documents. For example, the microgeneration sector is still quite new in this country and requires clear government support, both in the form of subsidies (e.g. installation grants) and supportive institutions (e.g. making it easier to connect to the grid, claim renewable obligation certificates and so on). Early feedback suggests that the microgen strategy and LCB programme are too vague to provide the necessary confidence for investors to support and help build this industry. Without this short-term support, the industry will find it difficult getting up to speed and hence being ready to support the government’s desired long-term growth in microgen.

We’ve now submitted our contributions to these consultations and it’s just a matter of waiting to see what happens. Fingers crossed!

Compare and contrast

I came across these two articles (1 and 2) today on the Globe and Mail’s website. The federal government is going to give low income households $250 to help with heating costs this winter since the prices of oil, gas, and electricity have all risen big time, partly due to the Gulf Coast hurricanes. But prices have been rising steadily for a while now and this policy, like that of the Nova Scotian government, implies that future cost increases might also be mitigated by such rebates.

This is awfully short-sighted. As fuel costs rise, not only will these fuel rebates increase, but the number of people claiming them will also increase, driving the total cost of such a programme through the roof. So it’s disappointing that the articles, and the comments posted by the general public, have been focusing on how much everyone pays in fuel taxes and wouldn’t it be nice if the government would just let us keep some more of our money. Well yes, it would be nice but wouldn’t it also make sense to spend this money improving the thermal performance of these homes so that less energy is required to heat them in the first place, insulating (pardon the pun) against future price rises? The article makes only a one sentence mention of this option plus a soundbite from the NDP.

In contrast, this article on the BBC website at least briefly mentions energy efficiency, as well as supply-side measures. This is not a one-off though and I’ve noticed a general difference between North America and European media on energy issues. In the UK, the BBC and the broadsheets almost always mention some form of demand side management when discussing energy policy issues but in Canadian or American media, efficiency or conservation hardly ever appear. The only exception is when there is an energy-related crisis; e.g. when prices rise so much (as with gasoline recently), that people start to notice and change their behaviour according or in the case of Ontario’s summer energy shortages, there is a threat of blackouts. In Europe, I would say that the already high cost of fuels (and perhaps greater awareness of environmental issues) forces decision makers to consistently explore all options. Maybe if prices keep rising in North America, demand side measures and other considerations will be integrated into policies which appear to be almost exclusively supply-side driven.