Results: Searching for 'Policy'

• What we do
• The areas we work in
• The outcomes
• Commercially available products
• Who we have worked with

• Offshore Wind
  • Is a proven technology that is being deployed commercially with a credible path to becoming competitive with the lowest cost low carbon technologies
  • The focus for technology development is now on – improving yields, reducing capital & operational costs and achieving wider deployment
  • A stable policy and funding environment into the medium term would accelerate the achievement of energy cost competitiveness
• Tidal Stream Energy
  • Is at a much earlier stage in the innovation chain
  • Its innovation needs are known and the challenge is one of how to put the component parts together in deployable systems rather than having to reinvent the technology
  • MeyGen’s Inner Sound project, the world’s first tidal stream array is pivotal to advancing the technology and developing supply chain capability

• The UK can implement an affordable (approximately 1% of GDP) 35-year transition to a low carbon energy system by developing, commercialising and integrating known – but currently underdeveloped solutions
• There is enormous potential and value in CCS and bioenergy in delivering alow carbon future
• The ability (or failure) to deploy these two technologies will have a huge impact on the cost of achieving the UK climate change targets and the national architecture of low carbon systems and future infrastructure requirements
• To avoidwasting investment, crucial decisions must be made about the design of the future UK energy system, driven by choices on infrastructure
• The next decade is critical in preparing for transition
• Preparation will require major investments in developing and proving key technology options by the mid 2020s
• Preparation creates options, demonstrates leadershipand provides scope for economic advantage in a global market place
• Planned UK spend is probably sufficient, if it is targeted to develop genuine deployment readiness of the most strategically valuable options on the pathway to 2050
• Significant policy intervention will be required to support key technologies with characteristics that make a pure market approach difficult (e.g. CCS, bioenergy, nuclear, offshore wind, heat networks

• Low cost sensors that enable many things to be measured – for example all the information that cars now have available.
• Communications infrastructure that enables data to be transported almost anywhere on the planet.
• Relatively low cost storage and processing power that is scalable, so you mostly only pay for what you need.
• Software tools that enable data to be transformed to produce information and insight that can be displayed in a way that people can easily grasp.
• Social and business ecosystems that set expectations and enable us to share and transact without relying on a single point of control.
• Rating sites such as TripAdvisor, blogs, PayPal and social media channels all provide social and commercial models that increase individual knowledgeand empowerment.

These elements have only just started to penetrate energy, which has been held back significantly by the current governance structures. Energy presents similar challenges to those of finance where changes which should benefit consumers come with new risks. However, giving people more freedom in how they buy and use energy should carry less risk than giving them freedoms over their pensions and other investments.

What policies and other factors have driven change/transformation in heat delivery technologies, fuels and infrastructure? The Technology and Policy Assessment (TPA) Theme of UKERC have published a scoping note outlining their ongoing investigation into this topic.

This UKERC TPA working paper has been prepared to support the Committee on Climate Change’s advice to the UK government on the implications of the Paris Agreement on its long-term emissions reduction targets. In their recent reports, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have highlighted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR), defined as any anthropogenic activity that results in the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, is critical to meeting the Paris Agreement target.

This review addresses two technological CDR solutions that have been demonstrated: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). The overarching questions which this review addresses, for both BECCS and DACCS, are:

1. What is the potential contribution that these technologies could make to CO2 removal and potentially CO2 emissions reductions to achieve net zero emissions in the UK?
2. What are the current and projected costs, globally and in the UK, of these technologies and how plausible are projected cost reductions (including evidence for the benefits to be derived from economies of scale/technology learning)?

The development of a comprehensive industrial strategy for the UK is long overdue. The strategy is an opportunity to bring much needed coherence to economic and industrial policy, and to ensure that it works in tandem with the governments other policies and plans. It is particularly important that the strategy underpins the UKs transition towards a cleaner, low carbon economy. This will only be achieved if it is fully compatible with the Climate Change Act, and is integrated with the forthcoming Emissions Reduction Plan.

The Green Paper includes a welcome confirmation of the governments commitment to reducing greenhouse emissions to meet statutory targets, and to do so whilst meeting other important energy policy goals. Unlike previous statements of energy policy, we are pleased to see that the Green Paper adds a fourth policy goal alongside the familiar trilemmaof emissions r

The latest independent report to the UK government on carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) was published in July this year. The CCUS Cost Challenge Task Force (CCTF) reported under the heading “Delivering Clean Growth”. 

There have also been new pronouncements on CCS in the Committee on Climate Change’s annual update to Parliament and in the National Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Assessment.

Like everyone else who works in and around CCS in the UK, Ian Temperton, who is also an Advisory Board Member of UKERC, spends vastly more time writing reports and sitting on committees than he does actually trying to capture, transport and store CO₂.

From the perspective of someone who sat on the CCTF and the previous Parliamentary Advisory Group (PAG) on CCS which reported in 2016, he takes a critical look at what these various bodies have said this year and puts them in the context of the many previous reports on the subject.

CCS, a citizen of nowhere?

While CCS needs to be deployed at very large scale for many pathways that restrict global warming to acceptable levels, including those for the UK, progress to date has been negligible.

The UK government seems to have a new enthusiasm for CCS but it is hard to extract a clear strategy from the recent interventions.

The very premise on which the government bases its current approach to CCS looks very much like it wishes to “have its cake and eat it”. The accompanying desire not to look like it is “picking winners” means that recent reports don’t make a particularly compelling case for CCS at all, at least in the medium term.

This challenges the very nature of whole energy systems thinking. CCS, with its potential applications across the energy sector in electricity, heat, transport and heavy industry (not to mention negative emissions) should be, and indeed is, easy to make the whole of system case for. However, being a citizen of the whole energy system makes CCS a citizen of nowhere, and we are no clearer to plotting an efficient route for deployment through the many potential applications of this technology.

The need for a public Delivery Body

The business model for CCS leaves many unanswered questions. What role does regulation have? Should it be publicly or privately financed? How can “full-chain” CCS be delivered? How can we leverage competition (a word which can hardly be spoken in the CCS debate)? How do we create the right incentives for heavy industry? Can we learn from other large infrastructure projects like London’s Super Sewer? And how does CCS fit in an energy system increasingly dominated by low marginal cost sources of supply like renewables?

The paper finds little to suggest that CCS policy in the UK has become any clearer. 

Given the need to develop quickly under such high levels of policy uncertainty, and given that the public sector always has, and always will, fund the majority of the costs of developing CCS, the paper argues for the formation of a public Delivery Body. It also suggests that time is short to make the case and develop the plan for such a body ahead of next year’s UK Government Spending Review.

If we are to harness the new government enthusiasm while addressing the same old uncertainties in CCS policy then there is an inevitable and critical role for a Delivery Body.

We welcome the idea of offering more policy support to SMEs to enable the uptake of energy efficiency opportunities, to the benefit of their enterprises, the economy as a whole and the environment. Researchers have previously argued that there is not enough policy focus on SMEs (Banks et al, 2012, Hampton and Fawcett, 2017) and this consultation was valuable as part of a wider process of policy development.

This response covers general issues about design of policy for energy efficiency improvement in SMEs, and offers specific evidence on Option 2: a business energy efficiency obligation.

• Nearly 20 years of climate change policy has failed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to
  economic activity in the UK.
• Although the UK has met its Kyoto obligations, this has been achieved largely by outsourcing production and
  relying on importing consumer products from abroad to meet growing consumer demand. As UK consumer
  demand has continued to grow, so have the GHG emissions embedded in imported goods.
• If the UK is to measure its overall contribution to changes in global GHG emissions, consumer emission
  accounting offers a sound method for attributing GHG emissions.
• Increased transfer of low-carbon technologies to producer countries, even when technology transfer does not
  form part of any international GHG emissions reduction agreement, will help those countries to reduce their
  emissions and thereby contribute to a true global reduction.
• “Framework conditions” to encourage sustainable consumption might involve government intervention in areas
  such as prices, providing infrastructure for a sustainable lifestyle, and public engagement.

The objectives of this workshop were to:

1) Facilitate discussion, debate and information-sharing on the potential role that clean coal technologies, in particular Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) could play in developing a secure and sustainable European energy system.

2) To identify potential challenges in implementing CCS and how it could fit in with other low carbon, clean energy sources

3) Formulate recommendations for stimulating future opportunities in CCS in Central and Eastern Europe Countries.

This meeting follows on from the UK Energy Research Centre annual assembly and brings speakers from leading national positions, who can provide perspectives on success, failure, and future pathways. Will the UK be a leader in climate stabilisation? Or is that moment about to pass?

The focus is on CCS ( carbon capture and storage). This is suite of technologies to capture CO2 at power stations and other concentrated sources, liquefy and transport the CO2, and inject into rock pores deep below ground. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a special report on CCS in 2005, where a worldwide analysis showed that CCS could halve the increase of CO2 emissions by 2100 especially in coal using countries. The UK has claim to a world-class opportunity for CCS, utilising reservoirs deep beneath the North Sea. Will technology, industry, and Government enable thisopportuni

This UKERC Meeting Place seminar, co-sponsored by the Sustainable Development Commission and the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs, aimed to achieve three outcomes:

• a consensus on what carbon neutrality means, its validity as a concept, and whether there are different definitions which might apply to operations, plans and policies;
• a consensus on the use of carbon offsetting, if and when it is justified, and what constitutes a viable and sustainable carbon offset;
• a consensus on what steps need to be taken, by the UK Government, the Devolved Administrations and/or the private sector, to ensure that commitments and pledges on carbon neutrality (including the use of carbon offsets) are applied in a way which is robust and compatible with the UKs commitment to sustainable development.

The event set out to engage a multi-di

Priorities for the Energy Cost Review

This week, the government’s long awaited Clean Growth Strategy will be published. Like many, we will be looking for details of how UK emissions will continue to be reduced to meet the 4^th and 5^th carbon budgets. In particular, the Strategy will need to explain how a range of increasingly significant policy gaps will be addressed.

The Strategy is likely to be closely followed by the conclusions of the Review of Energy Costs, led by Professor Dieter Helm. Ahead of the Strategy’s publication, we are publishing a briefing paper that covers four key issues that are central to the terms of reference of the Review of Energy Costs – and to the Clean Growth Strategy itself.

Our starting point is that the primary issue is the cost of energy bills for consumers, rather than only the unit price of energy. It is therefore important to focus on measures that can reduce the quantity of energy required for a given level of service as well as trends that could help to reduce or moderate prices. In line with the terms of reference, our briefing paper focuses on electricity costs since UK electricity prices are higher up the European league table than those for gas.

Energy efficiency

The role that energy efficiency can play in reducing electricity bills needs to be fully addressed. Significant progress in this area remains to be made; savings of up to 10% can be achieved through well designed standards and investment programmes, and a recent UKERC report highlighted that a 25% reduction in household energy demand is possible through cost effective measures. There is a clear rationale for government intervention, to drive energy efficiency and address the policy gap left behind by the failure of the Green Deal. The case is even clearer when considering the additional economic and social benefits that energy efficiency brings.

Innovation and technology cost reduction

The creation of new markets help drive technology cost reductions, as does patient government support. Offshore wind is a case in point - achieving much lower than expected prices in the recent Contracts for Difference auctions. If these projects are delivered, this will place offshore wind amongst the cheapest new sources of electricity generation in the UK.

Policy change is required to drive further innovation, yet with investor confidence low, this needs to build on existing policy instruments. A case has been made for moving low carbon technologies into a single competitive auction. However this technology neutral approach favours technologies close to market, failing those which are less developed. Complex technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which have significant potential but high capital expenditure and associated risk, could require a state-led approach to investment, allowing for competition to drive prices down.

A systems approach is required

The review’s terms of reference clearly state that a systems approach is required. The consideration of technologies within this perspective is imperative, as is developing energy policy within this context. This is particularly relevant for electricity, where a range of mechanisms and markets are used to balance supply and demand in real time.

System flexibility is key to keeping costs down. The cost of integrating renewables into the grid vary widely, with future cost of integrating intermittent power sources, depending upon the availability of cost effective system flexibility. Incentivising flexibility and reforms to the capacity market will be required to facilitate this, and as the proportion of renewables increases, government will need to decide how to account for system costs including those surrounding intermittency.

Research, development and demonstration

Innovation is an important driver for reducing costs and bringing technologies to market. However this non-linear process exists with multiple feedbacks between development, demonstration and deployment. Effectiveness is further dependent on incentives for demonstration and market creation, and UKERC research has shown that innovation in the energy sector tends to take three to four decades from early stage R&D to significant commercial deployment.

Analysis has been undertaken by government to establish this evidence base, yet too often this has focused on discrete technologies, with less attention paid to system innovation. It is this system innovation which will be key to the low carbon transition, alongside effective evaluation, to learn and disseminate lessons.

Eye catching initiatives such as the Faraday Challenge for storage are welcome, as is the UK pledge - as part of Mission Innovation - to double clean energy R&D spending between 2015-2020. Whilst a step in the right direction, when considering the scale of the challenge posed by climate change, many argue that government support for innovation at a greater scale is required.

Download the briefing note to read the full submission to Dieter Helm.

We welcome the re-assertion of key policy objectives and the commitment to a whole system approach described in the strategy. In our response we highlight a number of key areas that need to be addressed including the need for geographical specificity, and a hierarchy of objectives along with the introduction of low and stable prices as one of these objectives.

• policy interdependenciesand regulatory stability,
• harmonisation of standards and
• data protection policy.

1. Interoperability is a vital prerequisite for a successful trial and a workable, enduring smart energy system;
2. New system control techniques will be essential for performing groundbreaking functions in a dynamic, bi-directional energy environment;
3. Due regard should be paid towhat data needs to be transferred from within, and between, the various tiers of the smart energy system, and what security should be in place to ensure that critical national infrastructure and customer information is appropriately protected.

The European Commission talks the talk on energy, but can it walk the walk? In this UKERC working paper, Antony Froggatt (Chatham House) and Amelia Hadfield (Canterbury Christ Church University) look at the challenge of moving from ambition to delivery in the EU's flagship Energy Union plan.

The in-depth analysis presented in this report focuses on four key areas of the economy, highlighting how they may need to change to remain competitive and meet future carbon targets.

• Heat: All approaches for heat decarbonisation are potentially disruptive, with policymakers favouring those that are less disruptive to consumers. Since it is unlikely that rapid deployment of low carbon heating will be driven by consumers or the energy industry, significant policy and governance interventions will be needed to drive the sustainable heat transformation.
• Transport: Following the Road to Zero pathway for road transport is unlikely to be disruptive, but it is not enough to meet our climate change targets. The stricter targets for phasing out conventional vehicles that will be required will lead to some disruption. Vehicle manufacturers, the maintenance and repair sector and the Treasury may all feel the strain.
• Electricity: Strategies of the Big 6 energy companies have changed considerably in recent years, with varying degrees of disruption to their traditional business model. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to continue to adapt to rapid change or be overtaken by new entrants.
• Construction: To deliver low-carbon building performance will require disruptive changes to the way the construction sector operates. With new-build accounting for less than 1% of the total stock, major reductions in energy demand will need to come through retrofit of existing buildings.

The report identifies how policy makersplan for disruptions to existing systems. With the right tools and with a flexible and adaptive approach to policy implementation, decision makers can better respondto unexpected consequences and ensure delivery of key policy objectives.

Overview

A series of energy policy changes announced since the May election have led to concerns about increasing political risk faced by prospective investors in the UK energy system (ECCC 2015). It has also been suggested that policy needs to be ‘reset’, with less technology-specific intervention and increased resources for longer term research into new technologies (Helm 2015). This paper draws on a large body of analysis from UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) and Imperial College.

The paper argues that a ‘reset’ approach is unnecessary, will create delays to investment, increase political risks, and hence costs to consumers. Simply put, the government already has the levers it needs to encourage investment in a secure and lower carbon system. Policy can be made more effective by providing investors with greater clarity and a longer term perspective, using the policy framework that is already in place. Auctions for Contracts for Difference (CfDs) have already brought forward significant reductions in the prices paid to low carbon generators. CfDs could be moved progressively to a technology neutral basis, combined with price caps to bear down further on costs.

The paper discusses the infrastructure implications of new sources of energy and notes that government will need to balance the benefits of technology neutral CfD auctions against the need to develop strategic infrastructure in a timely fashion. It also discusses the impacts of variable renewables and explains that whilst it is important for system costs to be allocated cost effectively this does not mean that variable generators should be obliged to self-balance and invest in dedicated back up.

The paper also explains that whilst greater investment in innovation would be welcome, forthcoming research shows the timescales associated with invention, demonstration and deployment of technology are long. Whilst improvements to technologies are hugely important, the emergence of entirely new technologies remains very uncertain. Support for innovation should not be premised on wishful thinking about silver bullet technologies. Many of the technologies we need to decarbonise already exist and have done so for several decades. The challenge is to drive costs down and encourage network innovation to better suit new sources of power.

Finally, the paper argues that whilst more effective carbon pricing would bring many benefits it is not a sufficient condition for significant energy system change. Regulation iv UK Energy Research Centre of emissions from existing coal fired power stations after 2025 would aid investor clarity and improve the prospects for investment in both low carbon and gas-fired generation.

• Successfully deploying CCS would save billions of pounds – capturing industrial emissions at low cost, providing low carbon energy for industry, transport & heat and delivering negative emissions combined with Bioenergy
• To deliver these savings requires around 10GW of capacity by 2030 - needs capital investment around £21-31bn – based on efficient sharing of infrastructure and co-ordinated cluster/hub development
• Early investments in transport and storage infrastructure can unlock future unit cost reductions and strategic build out options. Strike prices below £100 per MWh are achievable in the 2020s
• 10GW scale deployment is achievable and affordable, capturing and storing around 50 million tonnes of CO₂ per annum from power and industry by 2030
• Developing capture technology options and diversifying geographical location can deliver reduced risk
• Success or otherwise in deploying CCS determines key aspects of the UK’s energy infrastructure architecture
• Delay increases reliance on nuclear and offshore wind – increasing system risk and costs before and after 2030

1. how material they are in UK bioenergy value chains, and
2. identifying which UK value chains offer a significant opportunity to deliver GHG savings relative to fossil baselines.

• Biomass combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) remains the only credible route to deliver negative emissions, necessary to meet the UK’s 2050 GHG emission reduction targets.
• Without targeted intervention and leadership, the opportunities to realise the full benefits of this negative emission potential could be missed
• Bio-hydrogen and bio-electricity are produced inpreference to biofuels and bio-methane
• Bio-heat is deployed across the UK, especially in earlier decades
• Gasification technology is a key bioenergy enabler, producing both hydrogen and syngas, and is one of the most flexible, scalable, and cost-effective bioenergy technologies
• Locational preferences for resource production are apparent: with Short Rotation Coppice Willow (SRC-W) in the west / north-west of the UK and Miscanthus in the south and east of the UK. Short Rotation Forestry (SRF) when grown is preferred in the south and east of the country, along with the collection of waste for making Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).

• Shipping emits substantial amounts of CO₂ which, without significant intervention, will rise as a proportion of our national emissions as we become less carbon dependent in other industry sectors
• Ocean voyaging ships have the biggest impacts on CO₂ emission due to the length and speed of their voyages and the current calculation method1 underplays the UK’s share of international shipping carbon emissions
li>There are economic advantages to emitting less carbon (and the economics of such are more cost-effective than some other carbon abatement opportunities in marine and other sectors)Using non-fossil fuels such as nuclear or high levels of biomass does not appear credible in the timeframe assessedIn the medium to long term (to 2050), the best potential to achieve substantial CO₂ reduction is by fuel consumption reductionli>ETI modelling has shown that a 30% fleet fuel consumption reduction can be achieved using innovative technologies with an economic payback period of around two years and a fuel price of $720/Tonne
• For the opportunity to materialise, fuel-saving technology demonstration is needed to give confidence to stakeholders and overcome market barriers

• The ETI has completed an assessment of the potential of using salt caverns, traditionally used to store natural gas, to store hydrogen (H₂) for power generation when the demand for electricity peaks daily. The use of these caverns would reduce the investment in clean power station capacity that the nation requires to build, and lift the average efficiency of the country’s responsive power system.
• Using salt caverns to store hydrogen has the potential to deliver clean, grid-scale load-following energy supplies
• The potential to store hydrogen changes inflexible gasification and reforming technology into competitive, highly flexible options for load following fossil fuel, biomass and waste fed power stations
• The UK has sufficient salt bed resource to provide tens of ‘GWe’ to the grid on a load following basis from H2 turbines
• Technologies making hydrogen from methane, such as steam methane reforming (SMR) and autothermal reforming (ATR) need to improve if they are to be competitve in power production from 100% hydrogen storage configurations – much of this improvement is already in hand in national clean fossil fuel, Carbon Capture and Storage and turbine  technology development programs
• Pre-combustion technology with storage offers flexibility to produce hydrogen and reduce the overall power generation investments

• There is a demonstrable route to making tidal stream energy competitive with other low carbon technologies;tidal stream has the potential to be a material part of the future UK energy system
• Tidal energy is capable of supplying 20-100TWh of the 350TWh of the UK’s annual electricity demand
• Potential impact of the tidal industry on UK GDP is estimated to be in the range of £1.4 - 4.3billion
• The cost of energy from tidal stream arrays can compete with other low-carbon sources
• The sector has transitioned in recentyears from small-scale prototype devices, through to full-scale demonstration and early commercial arrays are now in development
• The UK leads the rest of the world in the development of tidal devices
• Significant cost reduction will require coordinated investment in supply chain innovation, processes and peopleArray and device design integration is vital

• Even with aggressive cost reduction and innovation activities, current attenuator wave energy technologies are highly unlikely to meet the ETI/UKERC marine energy roadmap targets, and are therefore unlikely to make a significant contribution to the UK energy system in the coming decades
• Radical new wave energy extraction and conversion system approaches are needed to reduce cost and increase energy extraction and reliability.This will provide a trajectory towards lower cost solutions in the long term.

Energy has been a central feature of the EU since inception as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in the 1950s. A mainstay of successive policies has been to introduce ‘singularity’ in to the sphere of energy at different scales – for example, from a narrow central pooling of physical resources, as with the ECSC, to much broader attempts at introducing a liberalised single market place for gas and electricity, and proposals for a single gas buyer mechanism under the 2015 Energy Union framework. These moves were typically internal responses to external events, such as the Arab oil embargoes or geopolitical tension between Russia and eastern European countries. To achieve the goal of a single internal energy market policies have sought to remove or reduce the friction placed on cross-border trade, governance and regulation of energy by often contradictory and conflicting national policies of member states. This has taken the form of specific and targeted pieces of legislation aimed at technical harmonisation, as well as wide-reaching sets of policies to overhaul entire sectors and governance and regulatory practice across all member states.

A recently published working paper written by Joseph Dutton of the University of Exeter Energy Policy Group as part of the Energy systems at multiple scales programme sets out the path along which EU energy policy has moved since the initial creation of the organisation in the 1950s, detailing the principle documents and legislation upon which the current and proposed policies were constructed.

This meeting report summarises discussions at a conference UKERC co-hosted in March 2016 to identify future challenges in energy systems research.

• a description of the policy imperative which supports local area energy planning;
• an assessment of how this fits inwith energy planning already being undertaken by various local authorities and energy network operators across the UK;
• an explanation of the steps to be taken in adopting a whole system approach to local area energy planning outlining how local areas can follow an approach which reflects local circumstances to achieve decarbonisation goals, clean growth and other local drivers such as energy security and affordability, reflecting government advice.

• What is the ETI?
• Our energy system evolves around our choices
• Change happens fast
• Why do we need to balance?
• The tools at our disposal
• How much storage is needed?
• Vector Flexibility
• Demand Flexibility

• Create new energy systems, adapt existing ones and integrate them together
• Users define the energy system’s evolution, not the other way around
• Understand the implications of different scenarios so that we are prepared to evolve

This is the UKERC working paper.

This is the final report for the DTI and DEFRA on the development of a new UK MARKAL & MARKAL-Macro (M-M) energy systems model. The focus of this final report is on the extensive range of UK 60% CO2 abatement scenarios and sensitivity analysis run for analytical insights to underpin the 2007 Energy White Paper. This analysis was commissioned by the DTI to underpin the development of the 2007 UK Energy White Paper, and this technical report is a companion publication to the policy focused discussion of the modelling work (DTI, 2007).

The meeting brought together around 100 energy professionals from academia, business, the public sector, and nongovernmental organisations to discuss governance challenges and solutions for achieving a sustainable, secure, and affordable British energy system. The organisers approached this from a wide range of expertise including policy, law, regulation, energy provision, energy efficiency and behavioural change. The day began with a plenary in which four speakers introduced the topic. This was followed by breakout sessions to cover six themes:

• Technologies and investment
• Behaviour and lifestyles
• Local governance
• Institutions, decision making, and legitimacy
• International governance issues
• Business, new entrants, and new practices

During a closing plenary five speakers reflected on the key messages fromthe meeting.

At present, Governments commitment stands in sharp contrast with its inaction on heat decarbonisation to date. Under pressure to progress this agenda, Government has charged the Clean Heat Directorate with the task of outlining the process for determining the UK’s long-term heat policy framework, to be published in the Roadmap for policy on heat decarbonisation in the summer of 2020 (BEIS, 2017). This report, resulting from one of six EPSRC-funded secondments, is designed to support early thinking on the roadmap by answering the research question: How can Transitions research informs the roadmap for governing the UKs heating transition?

Delivered as part of the Energy-PIECES project, this report was developed during a secondment with BEIS.

This response is largely based on research carried out within the UKERC project: The Geopolitical Economy of Global Gas Security and Governance: Implications for the UK. It also draws on UKERC’s energy system modeling research which has explored the changes that are necessary to meet the UK’s climate change targets.

UKERC hosted an international workshop in Oxford on 30-31 March to discuss the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The objective of the workshop was to determine whether and how Kyoto countries intend to deliver their Kyoto targets.

40 participants from Government, business, academia, think-tanks and nongovernmental organisations attended the workshop from 16 countries including several European Member States, Russia, Japan, Canada and Ukraine.

The workshop aimed to explore how the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol could better capture the large energy efficiency potential in the CEE region. While implementation of the mechanisms in the region is desired, in practice it is likely to be a challenging task. The workshop has made it possible for two interested groups to meet and learn from each other: one group being participants from the CEE region seeking knowledge transfer and capacity building, and the other group being carbon trading specialists.

The gas and electricity sectors feature many different actors that interact in different ways, through commercial arrangements and physical transfers of energy. The activities of the larger actors – generators, suppliers, gas shippers, and network owners and operators – are regulated through various licences.

There is then a raft of standards and codes that govern the interfaces between the actors and many of the characteristics of equipment that is connected to the networks. Most of these documents were established when the gas and electricity sectors were first liberalised in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Although a number have seen various revisions since then, many industry observers have argued that they are out of step with technological and market developments and difficult to change.

This document contains the UKERC response to the 2019 consulation by BEIS/Ofgem about how and why the codes might be revised.

It was submitted to in response to the Welsh Government call for evidence to inform the development of Wales decarbonisation pathway to Net Zero, whilst also providing an initial step towards potentially developing a Just Transition Framework for Wales.

This report aims to answer the following question: What is the evidence that policy support for investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency leads to net job creation in the implementing regions?

The paper investigates the importance of governance for energy system change and specifically investigates some of the areas where the UKs net zero target implies significant infrastructure change or expansion, namely in industry and associated with buildings and transport.

• World energy demand is set to grow
• COP21 pledges fall far short of a 2ºC pathway
• Power is not typically the dominant end-use
• Opportunities to introduce step-changes in technology or strategic direction are few

This briefing note provides a short introduction to the application of the ecosystem services approach in enabling the sustainable transformation to a low-carbon energy system.

The Policy Pathways to Justice in Energy Efficiency working paper addresses two key gaps in knowledge regarding justice in energy efficiency policy in the UK. Despite disabled people and low-income families with children being defined in policy as vulnerable to fuel poverty, there is very little evidence about how the needs of these groups are recognised or incorporated into policy decisions. There is alsono clear evidence on how energy efficiency policies actually affect these groups, and whether policy outcomes are consistent across the UK.

The research was undertaken by researchers at the University of York andACE Researchand was supported byDisability Rights UKandThe Childrens Society. One hundred and twenty-five households and practitioners were interviewed as part of the research. In addition to this working paper, acondensed policy guide is also available, as well as separate guides for practitioners who focus on theneeds of disabled people, andfamilies on low incomes.

Summary of findings

The research team found that disabled people and low-income families with children often had higher energy demands within the home compared to other households. These increased demands are often associated with keeping warm, additional laundry needs, and in some cases using energy intensive equipment such as dehumidifiers and nebulisers. These circumstances lead to both increased household energy costs and higher risks associated with disconnection and a drop in household temperature.

Despite these needs, and the intention of policy to support households in this position, interviewees described accessing information and advice about energy and energy efficiency as a minefield, high levels of mistrust in the energy sector, and finding it difficult to know where to go and which sources to trust.

The report reveals the delivery of energy efciency policy is variable and patchy, with vulnerable groups in greatest need not always eligible for support or receiving support which fails to reflect their additional needs. To improve access for vulnerable groups and to meet their needs more effectively, the report recommends there be a greater recognition of the needs of vulnerable groups, more consistent approaches across the UK and better cooperation with non-energy sectors.

Barriers to accessing fuel poverty support

The report identifies five key barriers to accessing vital fuel poverty support mechanisms and suggests ways in which access and outcomes can be improved for all.

• Current energy efciency programme design leads to an emphasis on meeting targets at the lowest cost the numbers game and there needs to be a greater emphasis on the positive impact of intervention to the household rather than a focus on least cost.
  
• Households in need are not always eligible and the mechanisms for nding households needs to improve, including greater access to quality data, data matching and data sharing to enable households to be targeted more effectively.
  
• Vulnerable customers often are not aware they are eligible for support and mechanisms for nding these people need to improve, together with work to improve the trustworthiness of the schemes promoted.
  
• Current programmes focus on technical improvements to buildings rather than the needs of vulnerable groups and there needs to be shift to understanding the needs of these people and how they engage with energy.
  
• The delivery of existing energy efficiency support programmes across the UK is patchy and Government should aim for consistent outcomes for households wherever they live.

Energy is a crucial element for development in almost every aspect of community life such as education, health, food, and security, and it can contribute to farming productivity, income generation, and the creation of networks that enable youth to work from their villages. Despite this, around 1 billion people globally do not have access to sustainable energy sources, and 80% of those people live in rural areas across 20 countries in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. To decrease this energy access gap, and to improve rural livelihoods and increase economic opportunities in rural areas, Productive Uses of Energy (PUE) offer an untapped opportunity: examples of PUE include irrigation and post-harvest processing.

Despite the benefits of PUE, they are often not considered in the planning off-grid rural electrification developments. This may be partially attributed to a lack of capital; riskyframework conditions; and a lack of clear policy guidelines available on the subject. The latter of which was the focus of this research project.

Delivered as part of the Energy-PIECES project, this report was developed during a secondment with Practical Action.

• Introduction to ETI and ESME, ETI’s modelling tool
• UK emissions reduction plan
• ETI’s Nuclear Insights - Key Messages
• Conclusions

This document sets out a response of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) to the Department of Energy and Climate Changes consultation Renewable Heat Incentive: Expanding the Non Domestic Scheme.

The aim of this paper is to describe three multi-sectoral modelling techniques, and to show how these modelling approaches have been used to quantify the economic impact of renewable energy and energy efficiency developments.

The three techniques are Input-Output (IO), Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) and Macroeconometric studies. Each is firstly detailed in a separate section. In each section we describe the nature and operation of the technique, and identify different types and sub-types (where appropriate). We then consider the data requirements of these modelling approaches and finally discuss what might be considered the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. For each modelling approach we pay particular attention to the ways in which the employment effects are estimated, as employment is arguably the most tangible economic variable.

After sections on each of the three modelling techniques, we address some general questions about their applicability and validity of each approach for understanding the quantitative impacts of renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements.

The UK Energy Research Centre welcomes this opportunity to provide input to Government’s Energy Review. We have addressed each of the questions posed in the consultation document calling on all UKERC members for input.

UKERCs 2017 Review of Energy Policy, appraises energy policy change over the last 12 months, and makes a series of recommendations to help meet the objectives of the governments Clean Growth Plan.

Our main recommendations are:

1. ‘Develop a strategy to avoid ‘cliff edges’ for the energy sector due to Brexit, including effects on interconnectors, the single electricity market for the island of Ireland, and nuclear power.
2. A White Paper that includes stronger incentives for energy efficiency across the economy, and an enhanced programme of low carbon heat demonstration and evaluation.
3. Learn from the success of offshore wind by extending competitive auctions in the power sector.
4. Minimise the costs of electricity system change and renewables integration by increasing incentives for flexibility.
5. Complement the additional funding for CCS innovation with a new strategy for deployment in the industrial and power sectors.
6. Ensure that vehicle taxation and other incentives are compatible with the target for phasing out new conventionally fuelled cars and vans by 2040. This should be complemented by a wider strategy for mobility that takes into account anticipated new services and business models.
7. A more comprehensive programme of action to involve citizens and communities in the clean energy transition, building on ‘Green Great Britain Week’.
8. Identify opportunities for energy policy learning across the UK – particularly in the areas of heat, engagement and energy efficiency.

1. The transition to net-zero will affect the whole economy. Investment and policy decisions by all government departmentmes need to be compatible with this transition.
2. Policies to support renewable electricity generation should be more ambitious, building on deployment and cost reduction successes. Action is also needed to ensure electricity market rules are fit for a fully decarbonised power sector.
3. Decisions by the energy regulator, Ofgem, should also be compatible with net-zero. This includes enabling investment in local electricity networks to facilitate heat and transport decarbonisation, and ensuring more active use of existing networks.
4. Local energy systems could play a significant role in achieving net-zero, particularly in the integration of electricity, heat and transport. More resources and greater powers for Local Authorities will help to ensure the potential for local action is realised.
5. A clear plan is required for upgrading the UK housing stock. A heat and energy efficiency White Paper must include policies for widespread deployment of low carbon heat (including demonstrating hydrogen at scale) and for prioritising low income households.
6. Whilst the decarbonisation of industry is receiving more attention, policy initiatives are not joined up. Funding for specific projects and industrial clusters should be complemented by market creation policies, including for carbon capture and storage.
7. Our analysis shows that achieving net-zero requires the phase out of fossil-fuelled vehicles to be brought forward to 2030. Immediate action is also required to counter the rapid increase in sales of larger cars (including SUVs).
8. Plans to meet net-zero should maximise environmental co-benefits. Potential negative impacts on ecosystems should be assessed and mitigated.
9. Continuing uncertainty about the UK’s changing relationship with the European Union has already affected decarbonisation plans. Whatever the outcome, close co-operation with the EU is likely to make it easier to achieve net-zero.
10. The transition to net-zero should not compromise energy security. In light of the events on August 9th, responsibilities for ensuring system resilience need to be clarified and applied in a more rigorous way.

In this issue of UKERCs annual Review of Energy Policy, we discuss some of the effects of COVID-19 on the energy system and how the unprecedented events of 2020 might impact energy use and climate policy in the future.

Focusing on electricity demand, transport, green jobs and skills, Brexit, heat, and societal engagement, the Review reflects on the past year and looks forward, highlighting key priorities for the Government.

Key recommendations

Electricity

The scale of investment in the power system required over the coming decade is huge. A big challenge is market design. We need a market that can incentivise investment in low carbon power and networks at least cost whilst also providing incentives for flexibility. Output from wind and solar farms will sometimes exceed demand and other timesfallto low levels. The right mix of flexible resources must be established to deal with variable output from renewables, with the right market signals and interventions in place to do this at least cost.

Mobility

The end of the sale of fossil fuel cars and vans by 2030 must be greeted with enthusiasm. Yet if this is to play its part in a Paris-compliant pathway to zero emissions, it must be one of many policy changes to decarbonise UK transport. Earlier action is paramount, and we recommend a market transformation approach targeting the highest emitting vehicles now, not just from 2030. Phasing-in of the phase-out will save millions of tons of CO2 thus reducing the need for radical action later on. The forthcoming Transport Decarbonisation Plan has a lot to deliver.

Green jobs and skills

COVID-19 recoverypackages offer the potential to combine job creation with emissions reduction. A national housing retrofit programme would be a triple win, creating jobs, reducing carbon emissions and make our homes more comfortable and affordable to heat. However, UKERC research finds that there are significant skills gaps associated with energy efficient buildings and low carbon heat. UKERC calls for a national programme of retraining and reskilling that takes advantage of the COVID downturn to re-equip building service professions with the skills needed for net zero.

Brexit

As the UK leaves the EU on the 1st January it will lose many of the advantages of integration. With new regimes for carbon pricing, trading, and interconnection yet to be agreed, there will be a high degree of uncertainty in the near to medium term. Given upward pressure on energy costs,delays to policy, and this uncertainty surrounding new rules, the overall effects of Brexit are not positive for UK energy decarbonisation.

Heat

UKERC research calls for action on heat to deliver the net zero technologies that we know work - insulating buildings and rolling out proven options. We need to end delay or speculation about less-proven options. Analysis is consistent with recent advice from the CCC that heat policy should focus on electrification whilst exploring options for hydrogen. We need to break the pattern of ad hoc and disjointed policy measures for heat and buildings, and develop a coherent, long-term strategy. This would be best achieved as an integral part of local and regional energy plans, involving local governments as coordinating agents. The aspirations for heat cant be realised unless we also take actionon the skills gap.

Societal engagement with energy

Achieving net zero in 2050 will entail significant changes to the way we live, what we eat and how we heat our homes. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that when faced with a threat, society can change rapidly. Engaging society with the net zero transition also needs to change, it needs to be to be more ambitious, diverse, joined-up and system-wide, and recognise the many different ways that citizens engage with these issues on an ongoing basis.

With a focus on gas and the UK continental shelf, industrial decarbonisation, heat, mobility and the environment, we look at developments both at home and internationally and ask whether the UK is a leader in decarbonisation, and if the transition is being managed as well as it could be.

As we reach the end of 2018, the scorecard for UK energy policy is mixed. Optimists can point to rapid emissions reductions, cost falls in renewables and the centrality of clean energy within the Industrial Strategy. Ten years after the Climate Change Act was passed, UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 43% from the level in 1990. The UK is on the way to meeting the first three carbon budgets, and a transformation of the power sector is well underway.

However, if we turn our attention from the rear view mirror, the outlook is more pessimistic. As the Committee on Climate Change pointed out in June, there are an increasing number of policy gaps and uncertainties. If not addressed promptly, meeting future carbon budgets will be much more challenging. For some of these gaps, there is a particularly clear and immediate economic case for action.

Key recommendations:

The government needs to take urgent action to ensure that the UK continues to meet statutory emissions reduction targets, and goes further to achieve net zero emissions. This not only requires new policies to fill looming gaps in the portfolio, it also requires much greater emphasis on sharing the benefits and costs of the low carbon transition more equitably. Our main recommendations are:

1. We repeat our call for a heat and energy efficiency White Paper, and recommend that the Industrial Strategy mission to reduce building energy use is extended to existing buildings.
2. A better, more targeted approach to the energy needs of low-income households is required. Energy efficiency investment for these households should be funded via general taxation.
3. Urgent large-scale trials of heat decarbonisation using hydrogen are required to understand whether it could be technically, economically and socially viable.
4. A dashboard of indicators is needed to monitor gas security during the energy transition. The current one dimensional approach is not sufficient.
5. Future electricity policy should build on the Electricity Market Reform policies that have worked well, and adapt them in the light of changes in technologies and costs.
6. Changes in incentives for ‘black start’ and other ancillary services are necessary to ensure that the electricity system remains resilient as it changes.
7. The target for phasing out conventionally fuelled vehicles is inadequate and does not fit with our emissions targets. The 2040 date should be brought forward and linked to accelerated investment in networks and charging.
8. The Industrial Strategy needs to be strongly linked to market creation policies for low carbon technologies. Carbon capture and storage is in particular need of such policies to progress beyond its current holding pattern.
9. To ensure widespread support for the energy transition, there needs to be more focus on equity and justice. The UK government should consider setting up a process similar to Scotland’s Just Transitions Commission to achieve this.
10. Continued vigilance is required to mitigate any negative impacts of Brexit, particularly those that could affect integration with European energy markets.

This review takes stock of UK energy policy ahead of the Autumn Statement, Industrial Strategy and new Emissions Reduction Plan. Its main recommendations are:

1. An integrated, evidence based approach to the new Industrial Strategy and Emissions Reductions Plan. The Industrial Strategy should set out clear priorities and the mechanisms for realising benefits for the UK
2. A new White Paper on Heat and Energy Efficiency
3. A Gas by Design approach to the future of gas that is compatible with carbon budgets and targets
4. A new approach to CCS commercialisation and deployment, in response to the Oxburgh report
5. An extension of the Levy Control Framework beyond 2020, and plans for auctions that include most large-scale electricity technologies and demand reduction in a single auction
6. Reform of the Capacity Mechanism so it gives equal

UKERC welcomes the Scottish Government's energy and climate policy ambition, and applaud the valuable lead it is taking on energy. This has the potential to bring economic and social advantages - for example, the development of low carbon industrial capability with export potential and jobs, and improved air quality with associated health benefits. However, it is also important to ensure that the scale and pace of the transition minimises the additional costs for consumers. This can be achieved by supporting technological innovaiton that further reduces the costs of low carbon technologies and by maximising investments in energy efficiency.

The aim of the TSEC Trust Symposium was to bring together key individuals from the UK energy research community with leading UK and international social scientists who had previously worked on issues of trust in other social and technological contexts, in order to:

• stimulate inter-disciplinary debate;
• allow UK energy researchers to engage with and learn from leading UK and international social science researchers working on issues and concepts of trust;
• develop new synergies between different strands of energy research and research on trust;
• improve the capacity of UKERC researchers to effectively engage with and critically employ concepts of trust within their own research; and
• contribute to UKERC’s networking function and build up the strengths of the research community.

Sustainable development, global warming and energy security are issues for the current generation and action/inaction now will profoundly affect future generations. Changes seem to be inevitable, but there is room for debate about the extent to which the market will deliver the necessary energy transition or there must be policy-led ‘managed change’. Whichever course is taken, changes on the scale and of the complexity required will depend on cooperation between stakeholders at many levels. Trust/mistrust will play a part, positive or negative, in securing that cooperation. As yet little work has been done on trust in an energy policy context. The TSEC Trust workshop and project are part of an attempt to build capacity among researchers to undertake that task.

A UKERC policy briefing considers some of the changes that are affecting energy systems and energy policies in the UK and the EU; and what the energy relationship between the UK and the EU might look like in future.

Meeting the Energy Challenge, the White Paper on Energy, was published on May 23, 2007 following several years of intense energy policy review and debate. The BIEE and UKERC one day seminar brought together prominent academics in each of the topics of the White Paper, to present their assessment and critique of the paper and to lead discussion of its implications.

The workshop was structured around the Energy Review Consultation Topics:

• Valuing Carbon
• Saving Energy
• Distributed Energy
• Energy Security
• Transport
• Electricity Generation (Renewables Clean Coal and Nuclear )

This briefing paper uses the example of a changing UK/Scottish government relationship after Brexit to demonstratehow to analyse the role of politics and policymaking in the transformation of energy systems.

Brexit will create a new division of policymaking responsibilities between EU, UK, and devolved governments.

In this paper we divide energy policy competences according to levels of government. Initially, it suggests that we cangenerate a clear picture of multi-level policymaking. However, the formal allocation of competences only tells a partialstory, because actual powers may operate differently from the strict legal picture. These blurry boundaries betweenresponsibilities may be further complicated by Brexit, even if it looks like the removal of a layer of government willsimplify matters.Instead of imagining clearlines of accountability, think of energy policy as part of a complex policymaking system in which the link between powers, practices, and outcomes is unclear and an energy system, in which government isonly one of many influences on outcomes.

Key findings

• Brexit could have a major impact on UK energy policymaking, but its likely effect remains unclear.
• We can predict major changes to formal policymaking responsibilities. There is less certainty of the policies that may
  arise from EU, UK, and devolved governments.
• The law is only one aspect of policy, and policy is only one influence on energy system outcomes.
• Systems thinking helps inform discussions of, for example, the impact of Brexit on the transition to a low carbon
  energy system.
• However, terms suchas energy systems will only be useful when researchers and practitioners clarify their meaning and identify the role of policy in their transition.

Energy security is a central goal of energy policy in most countries and with rapid changes occurring throughout the UK energy sector, it remains high on the policy agenda. Recent concerns about UK gas supplies - highlighted by National Grid's gas deficit warning demonstrated just how fundamentally important it is to have a reliable energy system.

Using a number of indicators, ‘The Security of UK Energy Futures’ assesses aspects of security such as energy availability, reliability, sustainability and affordability to examine how energy security risks will change over time

The report draws three main conclusions:

1. There is an important role for energy efficiency and energy demand reduction in energy security strategies; by reducing our energy demand we reduce exposure to risks such as price shocks and energy shortages.
2. The relationship between decarbonisation and energy security is not straightforward. Energy imports are often cited as being insecure, however this can be controversial. Imports can help enhance security by providing additional sources of energy, by lowering costs, or by increasing diversity. What matters most is where the imports are from and whether they are dominated by risky sources or supply routes.
3. Many of the risks can be mitigated; security of the electricity and gas system can be improved significantly by investing in system flexibility. Increasing demand side response has a particularly positive impact on system reliability.

This UKERC scoping note, written by University of Sussex's Emily Cox, Sarah Royston and Jan Selby, offers a review of existing academic research on the impact of non-energy policies on energy systems; and proposes a future research agenda on this topic.

• Energy networks as a part of the energy system
•  Energy system scenarios
• Network transition challenges
• Integrating networks to optimise across energy vectors
• Balancing supply and demand
• Final thoughts

This report examines the key uncertainties facing the UK’s planned low carbon transition, and identifies policies and strategies to mitigate or better understand them. It focuses on technical, economic, political and social uncertainties that could affect the achievement of agreed climate change targets between now and 2030.

The report shows that action can be taken to mitigate many of these uncertainties. In cases where it is not possible to significantly reduce them – at least in the short term – complementary strategies can be pursued. These include providing support for a diverse range of potential technologies and measures, and using trials and evaluations to identify those that are most effective. They also include making greater use of analytical tools that improve understanding of uncertainties and their potential impacts.

This report covers issues that are of current or future foreseeable importance, with a particular emphasis on those that have a strong global dimension.

The report starts with a very brief summary of the global context for energy (section 1), before briefly linking together the major issues affecting UK energy choices (section 2), and exploring through futures scenarios how these choices might play out in the years to 2050 (section 3). Section 4 then covers the major issues in more detail: the potential drivers of UK energy demand; how key components of the UK’s energy supply could evolve (with a focus on natural gas security and the role of innovation in low-carbon technologies); how public attitudes and values could shape the future direction of the UK energy system; how energy markets in the UK could evolve, in the context of developments within the EU; and what the impacts of energy system change might be on energy costs and bills, and on national and global ecosystem services.

This report provides an overview of what occurred over the 2 days of this annual assembly.

Thursday 28th June:

1. Welcome and introduction
2. UKERC highlights
3. Energy research and funding overview
4. Sustainable development
5. UKERC integration project
6. SPARKS network

Friday 29th June:

1. Materials & energy
2. Energy security
3. Summer school presentations
4. Final wrap-up

The introduction of Electric Vehicles (EVs) into the passenger vehicle market has, in recent years, become viewed as a primary solution to the significant carbon emissions attributed to personal mobility. Moreover, EVs offer a means by which energy diversification and efficiency can be improved compared to the current system which is dominated by internal combustion engines powered by oil based fuels. The UK and EU Governments have played an active role in steering the development and market introduction of EVs. Policies have been formulated and introduced to engage the consumer by raising awareness of these alternative options, incentivise adoption through fiscal measures and establishing the necessary infrastructure. However, a great deal of uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of these policies and the viability of the EV technology in the mainstream automotive market.This paper investigates the prevalence of uncertainty concerning demand for EVs. This is achieved through the application of a conceptual framework which assesses the locations of uncertainty. UK and EU Government policy documents are assessed through a rapid evidence review alongside contributions from academia to determine how uncertainty has been reduced.

This assessment offers insights to decision makers in this area by evaluating the work done to date through a landscape analysis. Results from the analysis identified six different locations of uncertainty covering (1) consumer, (2) policy, (3) infrastructure, (4) technical, (5) economic and (6) social.

In the UK there are strong policy imperatives to transition toward low-carbon energy systems. The Carbon Plan (DECC, 2011) represents the current key policy document that sets out the UK Government’s proposals for energy system change necessary to meet the carbon budgets enshrined in the Climate Change Act (2008); within this document public attitudes and acceptability are identified as key uncertainties with regard to the development of future energy systems. In particular, it is highlighted that there is little agreement over how to transform the energy system in order to meet climate change targets.

In this paper, public acceptability is identified as an indeterminate form of uncertainty that presents particular challenges for policy making. We build on our existing research into public values for energy system change to explore how the outcomes of the project can be applied in thinking through the uncertainties associated with public perspectives. This work was undertaken as part of the UK Energy Strategies Under Uncertainty project.

This research examines the impacts and uncertainties on ecosystem services (ES) and natural capital both within the UK and externally, relating to possible changes in power generation within the UK energy system.

It reviews the current state of evidence on the environmental impacts of generation and supply for nuclear, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and biomass (domestically produced Miscanthus and Short Rotation Coppice as a feedstock for power generation) as these feature strongly in future energy mix scenarios through to 2030 presented in the 4th Carbon Budget. For natural gas there was also assessment of the potential consequences given wider adoption of carbon capture and storage (CCS) techniques and fracking.

The impacts on ecosystem services of each supply option were summarised in a series of matrices. Each matrix sought to describe the energy supply system under evaluation in terms of the life-cycle processes involved (rows) and their impacts on ecosystem services (columns). Life cycle stages were categorised as upstream (infrastructure provision), fuel cycle (extraction/production and processing of feedstock), operation (power production) and downstream (decommissioning). Twenty seven ecosystem services were classified as supporting (processes and functions), provisioning (nutrition, water, materials, energy), regulation and maintenance (wastes, flow; physical, chemical and biotic environment) and cultural (use and intrinsic value).

This Working Paper explores the uncertainties in energy demand in the residential heating sector in the UK. This paper presents new quantified scenarios for residential energy use in the UK to 2050. These address both factors that are exogenous to the energy system, such as population, but also some systemically different approaches to delivering residential heat.

This work was undertaken as part of the UK Energy Strategies Under Uncertainty project.

Meeting the 80% carbon emission reduction target by 2050 is likely to require heat related emissions of CO2 from buildings are near zero by 2050 and there is a 70% reduction in emissions from industry (from 1990 levels). This will require laying the foundations for these emission reductions by 2030. A review of the barriers and uncertainties associated with the transition to a low-carbon heat supply in the UK out to 2030 were explored. This work was commissioned as part of the UK Energy Research Centre’s ‘Energy strategy under Uncertainty’ project undertaken to synthesise evidence on the range and nature of the risks and uncertainties facing UK energy policy and the achievement of its goals to reduce carbon emissions, enhance energy security while ensuring affordability.

In May 2014, the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) was awarded 14 million from EPSRC, ESRC and NERC for a third five year phase of research and engagement activities (2014-19). This new phase will build on UKERCs first two phases (2004- 2014). As was the case for UKERC phase 2, the new phase of UKERC includes a flexible research fund that will be allocated through a series of open research calls, overseen by an independent Research Committee. Around 4 million will be available for the flexible research fund during UKERC phase 3.

The flexible research fund has a number of objectives, including:

• To bring a wider range of researchers and disciplines into UKERCs research programme, including researchers from outside the energy community;
• To build collaborations between the UKERC research community and other research communities including other energy researchers, groups and centres;
• To allow the research programme to develop flexibility in the light of new scientific insights or external developments (e.g. in energy policy);
• To fill gaps in the UKERC research programme and/or the wider Research Councils Energy Programme; and
• To scope and develop new research agendas in partnership with funders, the research community and other stakeholders.

On 30 June 2014, an initial Town Hall Meeting was held at the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources in London, to discuss potential priorities for flexible funding.

This report is part of a review of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) Phase 2 research programme (2009-14). The review considers UKERC’s interdisciplinary energy research achievements; its strengths, weaknesses and lessons for the future. The review project is being carried out internally by staff from UKERC’s Research Coordination and Meeting Place teams.

The report presents the findings of an online survey of the UKERC research community and invited UKERC stakeholders, carried out in Q3 of 2013.

The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) is funded under the Research Councils’ Energy Programme (RCEP) to carry out ‘whole-systems’ interdisciplinary energy research, and to act as a central hub for University-based energy research in the UK. UKERC was created in 2004 under a 5-year award from three Research Councils: the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). A Phase 2 programme of work was supported by the same three funding bodies between May 2009 and April 2014. A third phase of UKERC research will start in May 2014.

This report presents the results of a research project which undertook an analysis of UKERC’s interdisciplinary energy research achievements: its strengths, weaknesses and lessons for the future. The review was carried out internally by staff from UKERC’s Research Co-ordination and Meeting Place teams. The project included a review of the existing literature on interdisciplinary energy research, a facilitated group discussion convened at UKERC’s Annual Assembly conference in July 2013 (n=15) , an online survey of the UKERC research community (conducted between July and September 2013) (n=90), and a number of semi-structured interviews with UKERC researchers, members of the wider energy research community and UKERC’s non-academic stakeholders (conducted between September 2013 and January 2014) (n=18).

The analysis has highlighted many of the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary research found in the wider research literature – and in energy and environmental domains in particular. Interdisciplinary research faces particular and persistent operational and strategic barriers, for both programme managers and individual researchers. Successful interdisciplinary research involves recognising these barriers, and explicitly and reflexively taking them into account in programme commissioning, design and management, and the findings reported here highlight a number of opportunities for improved interdisciplinary methods and practices for next phase UKERC.

In an uncertain political and economic outlook for energy research, a commitment to independent, holistic and interdisciplinary research becomes ever more salient. Yet there are powerful transaction costs and barriers to interdisciplinary research, and the resonance of UKERCs experience with other similar research initiatives suggests that some rather well-reported challenges have yet to be adequately addressed.

This report presents the results of a project which reviewed UKERCs interdisciplinary research capacities and achievements, in terms of strengths, weaknesses and scope for improvement.The project included a review of the literature on interdisciplinary energy research, a review of the experiences of other similar interdisciplinary energy and climate change research initiatives in the UK, a facilitated group discussion, an online survey, and a number of semi-structured interviews. As well as this report, ongoing analysis of the project findings is linking the UKERC interdisciplinary experience to other developments in energy and climate change publicly-funded research, and to wider, more conceptually-informed issues in the interdisciplinary studies research literature.

The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) is in its fourth five-year phase of research and engagement activities, which will run until April 2024. In addition to the core programme of research, a number of mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that participation in UKERC is broad, flexible and addresses the needs of the wider UK research community.

A Flexible Fund of around £3m (valued at 80% FEC) has been set up in order to commission new research and facilitate the integration of the existing programme. The Fund is overseen by UKERC’s independent Research Committee. The key aims of the Fund are:

• To allow the research programme to develop flexibly in the light of new scientific insights or external developments, e.g. in energy policy;
• To bring a wider range of researchers and disciplines into UKERC’s research programme, including researchers from outside the ‘traditional’ energy community;
• To promote integration in the UKERC research programme, and to fill gaps where needed;
• To build collaborations between the UKERC research community and other research communities – including other energy researchers, groups and centres; and
• To scope and develop new research agendas in partnership with funders, the research community and other stakeholders.

This report presents the outputs of two key consultation activities on potential Flexible Fund topics :

• Section 2 of this report sets out the outcomes of a workshop held on the 12th February with attendees from across the UK research community. This presents the research areas and ideas that were the most popular in the voting exercise, the key issues that were discussed in each of the breakouts and a record of the full list of ideas in each breakout group, as well as the outcomes of the voting exercise.
• Section 3 presents the results of an online survey.

On the 3rd of October 2016 a workshop was held at Imperial College in London in order to identify potential priority topics for the third round of funding. The interim outcomes of the scoping paper on non-energy policies were presented during the workshop. The attendees were then split into three groups where they had the opportunity to suggest potential topics for the third round of funding. This included specific discussion of potential research on the impact of non-energy policies. The participants also discussed the potential for funding smaller projects of up to 50k with the specific aim of building new collaborations. Towards the end of the day the participants undertook a prioritisation exercise to determine which potential topics they would prefer to see funded.

This report outlines the discussions that took place during the workshop and the outcomes of the voting ex

Increased CO2 emissions from economic activity are leading to climate warming and acidification of the upper ocean. Mitigating these effects raise unprecedented challenges in engineering the habitability of our planet. The potential advantages of CCS for the UK are outlined. Future sources of oil, coal, and especially the vulnerability of gas, are discussed. The benefits of deep geological CCS in EOR, depleted gasfields, and aquifers are outlined. Particular highlights are placed on problems of CO2 retention in the deep subsurface for required timescales. Government issues of: Value, Ownership, Monitoring, and Regulation or Licensing are critical inhibitors to any large–scale development of CCS. Opportunities for some middle–scale CCS onshore on the UK are outlined.

We support the mission-oriented approach of the Industrial Strategy and the inclusion of a specific grand challenge on clean growth. Delivering this challenge will require a holistic approach from government that includes the following objectives (Busch et al., 2018)

• innovation in low carbon technologies, business models and practices;
• managing energy demand; and
• enabling systemic change.

The first of these objectives points to the need for industrial innovation to go beyond the purely technical and to encompass new ways of doing business and capturing value. The second includes the need for greater industrial energy efficiency, but goes beyond this to include the much larger opportunities that could be realised by changing the demand for the goods and services produced by industry (Scott et al., 2019). The third necessitates an economy-wide approach to decarbonisation in the UK to maximise synergies between sectors (e.g. increased use by industry of decarbonised electricity), while ensuring that action on climate change does not lead to carbon leakage outside the UK.

Download the full submission to read the response to the specific questions posed by the consultation.

• To identify and build a common understanding among its stakeholders of the key factors required for the successful deployment of new low carbon energy technologies commercially and at scale.
• To develop a framework for the successful commercial exploitation of low carbon energy technologies that it hopes can be widely socialised and subsequently used by those organisations involved in the development, financing and delivery of resilient and affordable low carbon energy solutions in the UK.
• To provide an initial, high level ‘model’ of the UK low carbon innovation system, including its key stages, barriers, drivers and stakeholders, to provide a suitable structure for testing and socialisation with industry, finance and government stakeholders engaged in energy and other low carbon innovations.

What might community energy in the UK look like in the long term ? What does it need for it to thrive ?

This report provides a summary of practitioner and stakeholder responses to these questions, and many more, that explore the future of community energy in the UK.

Through a series of workshops held across the UK over the winter of 2018-19, invited participants were encouraged to explore and debate the future of community energy.

We found that community energy actors feel they have lots to offer to, and gain from, the transition to a decentralised and flexible energy system. The system appears to be moving towards a future where there is a clear need for organisations that combine technical knowledge with the skills and trust to effectively engage citizens – such as community energy groups.