Results: Searching for 'Publications stored with the EDC'

This policy brief explores the dual nature of DHTs in contributing to and mitigating healthcares carbon footprint. Focusing on Englands National Health Service (NHS), the study delves into how the adoption of digital technologies could either reduce or exacerbate the healthcare sectors carbon footprint, raising critical questions for the NHSs digital transformation efforts.

The analysis reveals that while DHTs offer avenues for reducing emissionssuch as telehealth reducing the need for patient and cl

The brief highlights innovative practices in prevention, repair, and recycling that can transform waste management systems, while acknowledging their interconnected complexities across practices. It underscores the need for local authorities to take a whole-system and cross-sectoral approach, empowering them with resources and policy fr

Through a case-study of Yorkshire water, staff interviews, examination of its current practices and insights from academic literature, the brief identifies opportunities for reducing energy use in water management. It underscores the need to enhance public awareness of water-energy interdependencies, emphasising shared responsibility for environmen

Emerging from a placement at the Office for Product Safety and Standards, UK, the study underscores the importance of reflexive, flexible, inclusive and interactive policymaking that integrates public engagement and considers the intricate relationships between social, technologic

Despite these benefits, barriers such as regulatory gaps, cultural inertia within the construction sector, and lack of consumer awareness hinder MMCs widespread adoption. In light of current challenges, the study underscores the imp

The brief discusses the contextual nuances of staff travel choices and the potential of policy interventions to encourage sustainable travel modes. Through a detailed review of NHS parking policies and broader academic literature on transport practices. It underscores the need to develop comprehensive trave

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 systematic review presents data on the total installed costs for domestic heat pumps in the UK and internationally. It covers historic and forecast costs, across a range of technology types and building contexts.

This workshop was a joint event organised by CREDS and UKERC Sarah Higginson, Catherine Jones, Kate Kwok, Marina Topouzi, Mike Fell, Gesche Huebner and facilitated by Mike Colechin

This working paper is an update to our November 2021 briefing paper: Risk and investment in zero-carbon electricity markets.

This briefing note brings together the current state of policy and activities that CREDS and UKERC have undertaken to support data sharing.

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.

UKERCs response provides commentary and analysis on many of the wide range of topics encompassed in the consultation. This includes the overall vision and objectives, case for change, the evaluation criteria defined by BEIS, locational pricing and local markets, lessons from other countries, changes to wholesale markets and incentives for low carbon generation, flexibility and capacity.

Our response provides detailed and evidence-based analysis on each of these complex topics, drawing on UKERC research and wider outputs. We highlight some of the complex trade-offs involved and argue for a cautious and gradualist approach that builds on the progress already made in some areas.

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.

Local Authorities role in the energy transition and working with their citizens in doing so, has been recognised as crucial to paving transition paths. Material collated within this report is intended to better inform Energy Cities and its partners, Local Authorities and Municipalities, civil society groups and others interested in how citizens can be supported and encouraged to participate in energy system developments as a part of the energy transition. The findings in this report are therefore intended to directly help Local Authorities across Europe in implementing more participative approaches to their governance practices in energy systems.

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

In this working paper, we look at the economic, energy, and emissions consequences for the UK of non-energy or invisible energy policies (Cox et al, 2019). These are policies which, while not explicitly energy-focused, impact on energy use and emissions. We examine this from a sectoral perspective, looking at differences in consequences when policies are successful in raising exports for individual sectors of the UK economy.

The central purpose of this paper is to extend that previous work and reflect the detailed industrial focus of the UK Government's Sector Deals' by looking below the aggregate level. We wish to focus on the incremental changes in economic activity, territorial industrial emissions and energy use (as well as the indicators of emissions- and energy-intensity of GDP) that could arise from success in increasing exports in specific industrial sectors. The opportunities and challenges for the UK to benefit at a sectoral level from international activity in low carbon sectors is the focus of work by Carvalho and Fankhauser (2017). That work does not however examine the consequences of achieving export growth at the sectoral level, or the quantitative scale of such impacts, or any trade-off's between successes in different low carbon sectors.

By looking these factors we can identify whether it may be possible to target export policies at specific sectors to stimulate greener growth, i.e. positive impacts on economic indicators with (desirable) reductions in energy use and/or emissions. While we might expect that such sectors could include those with lower energy and emissions per unit of output, or smaller links to energy-using sectors, the full (economic and environmental) system-wide consequences of increasing exports at the sectoral level can be examined using an appropriately detailed CGE model of the UK. Specifically, we are interested in the following question: are there differences in the consequences for economic, energy and emissions indicators when policies are successful in raising exports for individual sectors of the UK economy?

The UK Government has been seeking views on bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans from 2040 to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible. In this joint UKERC/CREDS consultation response we provide views on the following aspects:

• the phase out date,
• the definition of what should be phased out,
• barriers to achieving the above proposals,
• the impact of these ambitions on different sectors of industry and society, and
• what measures are required by government and others to achieve the earlier phase out date.

A phase out date of 2035 or earlier is sensible yet it might not be enough. Our research, recently published in the journal Energy Policy, has found that neither existing transport policies nor the pledge to bring forward the phase out date for the sale of new fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 or 2040 are sufficient to hit carbon reduction targets, or make the early gains needed to stay within a Paris compliant carbon budget for cars and vans.

Our research has shown that deeper and earlier reductions in carbon emissions and local air pollution would be achieved by a more ambitious, but largely non-disruptive change to a 2030 phase out that includes all fossil fuel vehicles. This would include all vehicles with an internal combustion engine, whether self-charging or not. However, only the earlier phase outs combined with lower demand for mobility and a clear and phased market transformation approach aimed at phasing out the highest-emitting vehicleswould make significant contributions to an emissions pathway that is both Paris compliant and meets legislated carbon budgets and urban air quality limits.

The proposed policy will involve high levels of coordination, intention and buy-in by policy makers, business and wider civil society. By far the biggest barrier to change will be the incumbent industries the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). They have a well-known track record of pushing back against EU vehicle regulations on the grounds of cost. In the case of electric powertrains, this push back is evident, with added resistance on the base of restricted supply chains and time to alter production processes. We suggest this is all the more reason to publish and implement a market transformation strategy now so that early wins which do not rely on supply chains or large transformations to the production line can mitigate against any later genuine supply-side constraints. Such a clear policy steer from the UK government is needed in order to ensure that UK consumers have more choice of cars than they may otherwise get if the OEMs restrict their sales of the most efficient vehicles into the UK market once out of the EU regulatory regime.

UKERC research into various phase-out policies has looked at how disruptive they would be for key stakeholders of the transport-energy system, and how much coordination would be needed to achieve the policy goals. This research has shown that in the Road-to-Zero ICE phase out by 2040 the main actors of the road transport and energy system are unlikely to undergo disruptive change. This is due to the relatively slow and limited evolution of the fleet towards unconventional low carbon fuels, the continuation of fuel duty revenue streams well into the 2040s and little additional reductions in energy demand and air pollutant emissions.

However, in the earlier (2030) and stricter (in what constitutes an ultra-low carbon vehicle) phase-outs we can expect some disruption for technology providers, industry and business in particular vehicle manufacturers, global production networks, the maintenance and repair sector as well as the oil and gas industry. There will also be localised impacts (some potentially disruptive) on electricity distribution networks and companies, even with smart charging.

Ending the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans earlier, coupled with the electrification of road transport should form a key part of long term decarbonisation policy, but it is not a panacea. First, an earlier phase out date of 2030 implies we have 10 years to plan for and implement a transition away from fossil-fuel ICE cars and vans. As we discussed in our response, our research suggests that this is achievable without significant disruption to the transport-energy system, but it needs to be linked to accelerated investment in charging networks, battery development and deployment, increased market availability of zero-emission vehicles, and equivalent-value support by the Government to level the playing field with the incumbents. Second, our research has shown multiple times that further and earlier policy measures that impact the transport-energy system are needed, including a clear and phased market transformation approach that targets high-emitting vehicles, access bans in urban areas, and dynamic road pricing that could fund an order of magnitude increase in investment in sustainable transport modes.

We support bringing the phase-outdate forward and urge it to be earlier than 2035 and include phasing out any non-zero tailpipe vehicles using a market transformation approach. We strongly believe Government has a crucial role to play in leading the way to decarbonise transport, going well beyond the proposed policy change of bringing forward the end to the sale of new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars and vans from 2040 to 2035 or earlier.

Pathways that are consistent with legislated net zero targets are likely to see highly significant changes to demand for electricity. When these changes will start to take place and how quickly is uncertain, which leads to challenges when setting price controls. Key elements to circumnavigate this will be flexibility and scenario planning.

The need for network reinforcement can be reduced by the appropriate use of flexibility, e.g. in the timing of EV charging. However, the means by which different sources of flexibility might be encouraged and then utilised are still immature and it is not yet clear which will actors prove to be the most significant and efficient in providing services.

Flexibility can only go so far in helping meet power supply needs; at some point, network capacity often proves the most cost-effective means, especially when considering its reliability and lifetime, and the opportunities provided by asset replacement. The triggering of investment in network assets presents an opportunity not just to meet the immediate need or that forecast for the next few years, but to provide for the maximum transfer that can be envisaged throughout the path to net zero. This is likely to be cheapest for consumers over the longer term as the incremental cost of additional electrical capacity is small relative to the total cost of aproject, it avoids the need for repeated interventions, andit saves on the long-term cost of network losses.

Ofgem has noted in the consultation document that some form of scenario planning of investment is likely to be needed. A number of scenarios should be developed that encompass key uncertainties but are consistent across Britain in respect of the whole, multi-vector system, and associated assumptions.

There should be engagement with Local Authorities and other stakeholders to develop regional plans of future energy needs, such as a Local Area Energy Plan. This engagement is important as local, regional, or devolved administration policies as well as different geographies and starting points can drive different actions.

Innovation is a long-term process and uncertainty is inherent to it there is always the potential for unforeseen things to arise. What this means for the energy system is that:

1. Withinaportfolio of innovations, some will realise the intended benefits, but some will not.
2. Where benefits are realised for energy users, they will, in general, take time to accumulate.

Where there is uncertainty about the effect or cost of new practices or technologies on an energy system and its users who ultimately pay but also benefit from innovations that are adopted it is reasonable for those users to share the risk by sharing the cost of resolution of the uncertainties. However, arguments might be made that costs should be shared not by energy system users, i.e. its customers, but by taxpayers, e.g. through funding by UKRI.
A less than perfect set of arrangements for the sharing of costs between different parties should be accepted if that is what is necessary to support R&D capacity, address risks, and drive innovation. Moreover, the amount of network customers money that is being proposed in RIIO-ED2 to support innovation is modest compared with the network companies total expenditure and the benefits that will accrue to customers and society as a whole in the energy system transition.

Good governance and good practice on the part of network licensees is essential to ensure that customers money is used effectively. In particular, we agree with Ofgem that data transparency associated with network innovation projectsneeds to be much improved.

In order that the scope of Network Innovation Allowance (NIA) funding is not set too narrowly, we think it important to have a clear understanding of what a successful energy system transition involves. We include in our response a first draft of a definition and include recommendations for the threshold that projects must meet to be funded.

Summary: The greatest challenges faced by Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) in forming investment plans relate to the gathering and use of information with suitable levels of spatial and temporal detail. Access to smart meter data should help, but innovation will be required to turn data into useful information.

A final observation is that it is important for the UKs economy as a whole that the UK has the capacity to undertake research and development, to innovate, and to generate evidence in order to drive the commercial viability of ideas

Commencing in 2016, the Financing Community Energy project provides a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the role of finance in the evolution of the UK community energy sector. This report presents the final of our four case studies of UK community energy organisations, exploring how these organisations have sought to finance their projects against a backdrop of diminishing government support for grassroots sustainable development.

Established in 2013, Brighton and Hove Energy Services (BHESCo) primary focus was to develop both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, whilst also ensuring people have equal access to energy. BHESCo is rather unlike our other community energy case studies in that it operates very much like an Energy Services Company (ESCo), where they accept some degree of responsibility to provide the energy service that its customers ultimately desire (e.g. lighting, ambient temperature), rather than the straightforward supply of heat or electricity.

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.

Commencing in 2016, the Financing Community Energy project provides a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the role of finance in the evolution of the UK community energy sector. This report presents the third of four case studies of UK community energy organisations, exploring how these organisations have sought to finance their projects against a backdrop of diminishing government support for grassroots sustainable development.

Gwent Energy (Wales) was formed in 2009 to deliver environmental benefit and cost savings to its local community. It aims to help local consumers save money on their energy bills through a combination of renewable energy, efficiency, storage and electric vehicle charging interventions, whilst simultaneously generating a surplus to fund local community initiatives.

• We welcome that a target of 600,000 heat pumps is included in the plan as this provides some clear direction for industry. However this is purely a target and it requires a thorough policy and governance framework to both support deployment and protect consumers.
• Despite the clear case for district heating, it is overlooked in the plan, and there is a lack of focus on energy efficiency despite the expected centrality of both of these technologies.

This report presents a case study of Edinburgh Community Solar Cooperative, exploring how it financed the project against a backdrop of diminishing government support for grassroots sustainable development.

This report presents the first of four case studies of UK community energy organisations, exploring how these organisations have sought to finance their projects against a backdrop of diminishing government support for grassroots sustainable development.

Edinburgh Community Solar Cooperative (ECSC) is a Community Benefit Society (BenCom). Its objectives are a combination of environmental and social, with an explicit focus on reducing emissions, alleviating fuel poverty, improving energy security and promoting sustainable development education.

ECSC quickly settled on renewable power generation as a means of delivering this combination of environmental andsocial value. Today it operates 1.4 MW of solar PV panels on the roofs of 24 council-owned properties in Edinburgh, including schools, leisure centres and community halls.

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.

Energy Efficient Scotland (EES) is a large scale energy efficiency improvement programme to be implemented in Scotland. Over a 20-year period, currently scheduled to start in 2020, an amount in excess of 10billion is planned to be directed to the improvement of the energy efficiency in domestic and non-domestic buildings.

Funding for energy efficiency projects will come not only from the Scottish Government but also private interest-free and low interest loans as well as the successor(s) to the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). Aside from directing investment funds to the Scottish economy, promotion and support of energy efficiency through programmes such as EES, is one of the few instruments at the Scottish Governments disposal to conduct energy policy, especially on the energy demand side.

EES was officially announced in May 2018 with the publication of the EES Route Map. At that time the UK was already in the process of leaving the European Union: commonly referred to as Brexit.

Brexit, regardless of its final shape (which is currently unknown), is expected to affect policies in multiple ways including limitations to EU funds, skilled labour movement restrictions and increased import prices to name a few examples (among the potential impacts highlighted by different studies, reported in a 2018 Institute for Government report ). The magnitude and the exact nature of any impacts will be affected by the exact form that Brexit will have. In this shifting socio-economic landscape, EES will undoubtedly be affected in a range of ways.

In this working paper,we explore the funding limitations that Brexit could introduce to EES. Specifically, we identify two EES funding mechanisms that are likely to be affected; government-issued grants and privately-provided loans. For different reasons, these mechanisms are of paramount importance in order to achieve the EES goals as specified in the EES Route Map.

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.

The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) has provided research and analysis across the whole energy system since 2004, with funding provided by the Research Councils through a succession of five year phases. Research related to low carbon heat became a significant focus during Phase 3 (2014 2019) and the current Phase 4 includes a research theme devoted to decarbonisation of heating and cooling, with several of our other themes providing relevant insights. Our whole systems research programme addresses the challenges and opportunities presented by the transition to a net zero energy system and economy.

In this submission we address specific consultation questions where UKERC evidence and analysis provides us with relevant insights. In addition there are a number of high level observations that we provide in these introductory remarks.

Overall, we are concerned that the measures outlined in the consultation need to be set within a coherent and ambitious package of policies that work together to drive the UKs transformation to sustainable heating at a rate commensurate with the goal of net-zero by 2050. While we appreciate there are some uncertainties over the future role of the gas grid and the potential for hydrogen for heating, immediate progress in heat system decarbonisation is clearly required as part of this multi-decadal transformation. As the consultation notes, heat pumps offer a low regrets option in some applications and it is widely acknowledged that the UK has a small supplier base and very low level of heat pump deployment compared to many countries. Increasing consumer and installer familiarity, and growing the skills base and supply chain all feature strongly in the process of learning by doing that reduces heat pump costs. Ifheat pump deployment were to proceed linearly to 2050 in line with some scenarios for deployment, annual installations would need to increase by an order of magnitude. Whilst welcome, the current proposals are not sufficient to deliver a large scale market for heat pumps. Ambition and clarity of purpose are essential if heat system decarbonisation is to succeed. We also stress the importance of providing support to support the development of large low carbon heating systems, including systems attached to heat networks. We appreciate that the provisions laid out in the consultation pertain only to specific schemes and note the observations made in the consultation about support for heat networks.

Alongside the required policy changes necessary to support specific heating technologies, wider governance changes will be needed to drive the UK transformation to low carbon heating.Whilst regulation and other forms of financial support for building efficiency improvement are noted in the consultation, we note that it is likely to be important to use sticks as well as carrots if the highest carbon heating systems are to be removed and building efficiency increased. However, it will also be important to consider ownership and regulation of heat networks, the role of local authorities and opportunities for innovation that may be unlocked through regulatory change such as encouraging electricity suppliers to offer smart heating tariffs or enabling community ownership of heat distribution schemes.

While we appreciate these issues are beyond the scope of the current consultation, it is important that these considerations inform policy choices made now.

1. Construction of a set of socio-technical scenarios of air conditioning uptake,
2. Dynamic building simulation to estimate half hourly power consumption of air conditioning in archetypal single buildings,
3. Addition of air conditioning demand to existing prediction of 2050 national grid demand (National Grid Two Degrees 2050 scenario).

Part of the Energy-PIECES project, this report was developed during a secondment at the Energy Savings Trust.

Commencing in 2016, the Financing Community Energy project provides a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the role of finance in the evolution of the UK community energy sector. This report presents the second of four case studies of UK community energy organisations, exploring how these organisations have sought to finance their projects against a backdrop of diminishing government support for grassroots sustainable development.

Green Energy Mull (GEM) is a Community Benefit Company (BenCom) that owns and operates Garmony Hydro; a 400 kW run-of-the-river hydro scheme on the island of Mull, off the west coast of Scotland.

Steering Committee consisting of female representatives from key organisations in the NI heat sector, including the Department for the Economy, the Utility Regulator, a local renewable industry group (NIRIG), the transmission and distribution system operators (NI Electricity Networks and SONI), an energy charity (NEA Northern Ireland), the Consumer Council and a public affairs consultancy (Stratagem).

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.

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.

This paper explores the sensitivity of energy system decarbonisation pathways to the role of afforestation and reduced energy demands as a means to lessen reliance on carbon dioxide removal. 

Large uncertainties surround the viability of carbon dioxide removal

The stringency of climate targets set out in the Paris Agreement has placed strong emphasis on the role of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over this century. However, there are large uncertainties around the technical and economic viability and the sustainability of large-scale CDR options. These uncertainties have prompted further consideration of the role of bioenergy in decarbonisation pathways and the potential land-use trade-offs between energy crops and afforestation. The interest in afforestation is motivated by its potential as an alternative to large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), with its arguably lower risk supply chains, and multiple co-benefits. Furthermore, doubt over the viability of large-scale CDR has prompted a renewed examination of the extent to which their need can be offset by lowering energy demands.

Testing the impacts of reduced demands and afforestation

A global optimisation model (TIAM-UCL) was used to examine decarbonisation pathways for the global energy system. Based on core assumptions, where energy demands follow business as usual trends and degraded land is used for energy crops, the model was unable to find a solution for a 1.5°C target. Over the period 2020-2100, the carbon budget of GtCO₂ is exceeded by 332 GtCO₂.

Scenarios where also run to examine how the least-cost decarbonisation pathway changes if i) energy demands are significantly reduced, or ii) degraded land is used for large-scale afforestation instead of energy crops. Each option on its own reduced the CO₂ budget exceedance but both were required to allow the model to meet the 1.5°C target.

Impacts on the energy system

Under the 2°C target, afforestation reduced the reliance on BECCS by 60%. Under the 1.5°C target, the system still used all of the biomass available, as the target is so ambitious. When the energy demands were lower, the effect of afforestation on biomass use was dependent on the climate target. Under the 2°C target, less biomass was used across all economic sectors, whereas under the stringent 1.5°C target, all the available wood and crop biomass was exploited, but its use shifted away from the production of liquid fuels towards use in power generation.

Lowering energy service demands had a larger effect on the energy mix than large-scale afforestation. This is because demands are lowered differently across the sectors according to their economic drivers. However, afforestation had a bigger impact on the marginal cost of climate change mitigation, as it substantially decreases the scale and pace of change required by the energy system, especially in the 2°C case.

Given its key role, afforestation should be considered more in deep decarbonisation scenarios, as should lower demand scenarios.

Lowering energy demand and introducing large-scale afforestation both present significant challenges and opportunities. Further work should focus on factors affecting the carbon sequestration potential of afforestation, along with an interdisciplinary research agenda on the scope for large scale energy demand reduction. Research on the social, technical and economic factors that affect the potential for converting abandoned agricultural land to energy crops or new forest would be beneficial. An interdisciplinary research agenda is needed that brings together techno-economic modelling and qualitative scenario development with research on the social change that could lead to large reductions in energy demand

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in energy storage research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: ENERGY STORAGE

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

• Trade-offs and co-benefits need to be actively managed if multiple environmental objectives are to be achieved and the low carbon transition is to enhance the natural ecosystems that are essential to prosperity and well-being. UKERCs research on environmental goals informs the answer to Q1.
• Energy efficiency and heat system retrofit in buildings offers an immediate triple-win in terms of economic stimulus, societal benefits and environmental goals. A strong long-term economic case can also be made to boost investment in all of those areas where the UK will need to build infrastructure and capacity in order to meet decarbonisation objectives. UKERC has examined the evidence on green jobs. We explore this in more detail in our answer to Q2.
• There are already skills gaps in the sectors relevant to energy efficiency retrofit and it is important to invest in addressing these, as we explain in the answer to Q3.
• Further action is needed to strengthen the industrial strategy. Ambition needs to go well beyond the aim to decarbonise one (or even all) of the UKs industrial clusters. Decarbonising all of industry will require research, development and demonstration support for breakthrough technologies and wider low-carbon infrastructure; market creation for products made via low carbon production processes; and promotion of resource efficiency and circular economy approaches. UKERC has published a number of reports highlighting where further action is needed, as detailed in Q4.
• Our research shows widespread low carbon ambition in local authorities but significant challenges in converting this to action. To change this, government could establish a new policy mandate for net zero carbon localities, institutionalise local net zero carbon planning and implementation through a new statutory power and devolved resources, and invest in local authority net zero teams. Q5 reviews a range of evidence on the role of local government.

Social Value is a rising policy agenda in the UK, formalised in legislation by the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. It refers to social, economic and environmental benefits whose value is not captured in financial flows. Whilst multiple tools and methodologies are available to measure Social Value, there is little consensus on which method is best to use in different contexts. This report reviews options and considers how best to measure Social Value in the context of major energy infrastructure projects such as HPC.

The report finds that value is highly contingent and subjective, and that what is valuable is not always tangible. It therefore emphasises the importance of qualitative measures of Social Value alongside quantitative data or monetary estimates, recognising the limits of assigning financial values to some types of outcome. It also stresses the importance of involving stakeholders to find out what matters to them and what they most value.

Delivered as part of the Energy-PIECES project this report was developed during a secondment at EDF Energy

Regen has run the Solar Commission, a project that has been set up as part of the UKERC Whole Systems Network Fund.

Innovation and falling costs are leading to solar power playing an increasing role in the energy system. The UK has considerable scientific, technical and business experience in solar power and including technology, power storage, control systems, financing, and power purchase arrangements.

The role of the Commission has been to stimulate new thinking and encourage collaboration between academics, industry and system operators on the role of solar power in the energy system. The Commission examined areas where the UK could use its scientific and technical capabilities to play a leading role in innovation and industrial strategy opportunities in solar power.

The Commission was formed of industry leaders, academics and others and the Commissioners were responsible for investigating the future role of solar power in the energy system, considering the UK’s areas of strength in research and innovation in solar.

The findings will be used to inform and influence decision makers and leading players in the UK energy system and have been published in a non technical briefing at the House of Lords on 9 July 2019. The project engaged new voices and maximise female representation through collaboration with Regen’s Entrepreneurial Women in Renewables initiative.

This report presents the conclusions of the Commission, setting out:

• key areas of innovation in the solar PV value chain where the UK has competitive advantage.
• the UK’s capabilities in these innovation areas.
• recommendations for UK to capitalise on the global growth opportunity.

A key finding of the Commission is that the UK has strong capabilities in many of the disruptiveinnovations transforming the solar PV market. The UK’s strengths in areas like innovative solar celltechnologies, storage, information and communication technologies and finance have sometimesbeen obscured by a focus on China’s domination of the manufacture of current generation crystallinesolar PV panels.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This report, commissioned by the Aldersgate Group and co-authored with Vivid Economics, identifies out how the government can achieve a net zero target cost-effectively, in a way that enables the UK to capture competitive advantages.

The unique contribution of this report is to identify the lessons from successful and more rapid historical innovations and apply them to the challenge of meeting net zero emissions in the UK.

Achieving net zero emissions is likely to require accelerated innovation across research, demonstration and early deployment of low carbon technologies. Researchers analysed five international case studies of relatively rapid innovations to draw key lessons for government on the conditions needed to move from a typical multi-decadal cycle, to one that will deliver net zero emissions by mid-Century.

The case studies include:

• The deployment of the ATM network and cash cards across the UK;
• Roll out of a gas network and central heating in the UK;
• The development of wind turbines in Denmark and then the UK;
• Moving from late-stage adoption of steel technology in South Korea to being the world leading exporter; and
• The slower than expected development of commercial-scale CCUS to date across the world. 

The report also sets out which low carbon technologies are likely to have wider productivty and growth benefits in other industries for the UK. These include carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS); heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); wind energy; biofuels and batteries. These areas should be prioritised by the government’s innovation strategy going forwards.

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 transport sector remains at the centre of any debates around energy conservation, exaggerated by the stubborn and overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels by its motorised forms, whether passenger and freight, road, rail, sea and air.

The very slow transition to alternative fuel sources to date has resulted in this sector being increasingly and convincingly held responsible for the likely failure of individual countries, including the UK, to meet their obligations under consecutive international climate change agreements.

Electrification of transport is largely expected to take us down the path to a zero carbon future (CCC, 2019; DfT, 2018). But there are serious concerns about future technology performance, availability, costs and uptake by consumers and businesses. There are also concerns about the increasing gap between lab and real world performance of energy use, carbon and air pollution emissions. Recently, the role of consumer lifestyles has increased in prominence (e.g. IPCC, 2018) but, as yet, has not been taken seriously by the DfT, BEIS or even the CCC (2019).

Developed under the auspices of UKERC the Transport Energy Air pollution Model (TEAM) has been designed to address these concerns and uncertainties in exploring pertinent questions on the transition to a zero carbon and clean air transportation future.

TEAM is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts systems model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon and local air pollutant emissions and external costs.

TEAM is a major update of UK Transport Carbon Model of 2010. This report contains the detailed appendices relating to TEAM :

• Appendix A: Vehicle Stock Model Variables and Data Tables
• Appendix B: Direct Energy and Emissions Model Data Tables
• Appendix C: Life Cycle and Environmental Impacts Model further specifications

To use the model for research purposes, please contact Christian Brand, noting that due to its size (the complete suite of modelling databases uses about 500MB of storage space) the model can only be made available by request.

The challenge of rapidly decarbonising our energy system can’t be addressed if only half of the population is involved. Unfortunately it’s old news that women are significantly underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects, with the UK having the lowest proportion of female engineers in the EU. Across all academic disciplines women account for 58% of Postgraduate students but only 25% of Professors.

Our research explores the current state of gender balance in UK energy research. We looked at the data and talked to female energy researchers about their experience of securing research funding and of academic life. They told us what needs to change.

Under the UK Climate Change Act 2008, the government has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels (Climate Change Act, 2008). This will require a large shift in the UK’s energy system, ranging from energy production, across transmission to consumption.

The public are implicated in the transition process as energy users, increasingly also as energy producers and as active members of society who might support or oppose energy projects and policies. Previous research (Demski et al., 2015; Parkhill et al., 2013) has shown that there is widespread public support for transitioning to a low-carbon, affordable and reliable energy system – however, this change is associated with costs and it remains to be seen how these costs will be covered.

This research explores the views of the British public on how the energy transition should be financed. Drawing on a survey of 3,150 respondents and focus groups in 4 locations across Great Britain, it investigates what responsibility members of the public assign to government, energy companies and the general public for financing energy system change.

Research findings

The results highlight widespread support for an energy system that ensures affordability, reliability and low carbon energy sources. Energy companies and the government were assigned primary responsibility for contributing financially to energy transition, as they were seen to have the structural power and financial means to implement necessary changes. Respondents also indicated that the general public ought to contribute as well, although the public was perceived to be paying over the odds already (through bills to the energy companies and levies to the government). Nonetheless, research participants expressed willingness to accept between 9-13% of their energy bills going towards environmental and social levies.

Distrust in energy companies and government

Willingness to contribute financially towards the energy transition was also found to be dependent on the perception that energy companies and government are contributing financially and showing real commitment to energy system change. It was also notable that this condition was not currently thought to be met; distrust in this regard was particularly evident in focus group discussions.

Distrust in companies: People believe that the majority of energy companies are driven primarily by profit motives leading to inadequate commitments with regards to energy transition goals such as investing in low-carbon energy and ensuring energy affordability.

Distrust in government: The government, and politicians in particular, are seen as too closely connected to the energy industry, leading to inadequate and ineffective regulation of energy companies and their opaque practices.

Examining what underlies people’s distrust, it is evident that the public has a number of justice and fairness concerns that need to be addressed. In particular, beliefs concerning distributive justice (i.e. how costs are distributed across society) and procedural justice (i.e. respectful treatment, transparent practices and decision-making) are important for public acceptance of responsibility and costs.

Key recommendations

Addressing the issues underlying the trust deficit will be challenging, but this is nonetheless important if we are to ensure that there is to be broad societal consent and engagement with the low-carbon energy transition. To begin this process, the briefing includes the following recommendations:

1. Government and energy industry must show strong and clear commitments to low-carbon energy system change
2. Greater transparency and accountability regarding costs, decision-making and practices in relation to financing energy transitions
3. Greater clarity and justification for how money is spent by government and energy companies
4. Innovative thinking on how to distribute current and future costs in a fair manner across society
5. Finding ways to credibly show that energy companies are not driven by profits alone
6. Robust and consistent evidence of clearer separation between government and the energy industry

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.

There is an increasing sense of urgency about the global energy system transition. For many observers an urgent energy transition is also a necessarily disruptive one, in that it is only by radically remaking energy systems that an accelerated transition to low carbon and sustainable energy can be achieved.

Closer to home, there has been substantial progress in some parts of the energy system in the decade since the passing of the UK and Scottish Climate Change Acts. Other areas have shown little sign of change, and the transition ahead may well be more disruptive and intrusive than that seen so far. At the same time, there is also an emerging counter-narrative: that repurposing our existing energy assets (physical and social) offers the best and quickest transition path, since there is insufficient time to disrupt and remake. 

Attending energy events and keeping up-to-date with emerging evidence can instil a sense of different experts talking past each other. For those involved in whole systems energy research, and working at the research-policy interface, this can be deeply frustrating. To help address this, UKERC – working with ClimateXChange (CXC), Scotland’s Centre of Expertise on Climate Change – has spent two years analysing disruption and continuity in the UK energy system.

As part of that work, we surveyed around 130 experts and stakeholders about disruption and continuity-led change in the UK energy transition. The experts were mostly UK based researchers working on ‘whole systems’ research projects, but also included policymakers, advisory bodies, think tanks, businesses (old and new) and civil society organisations. This report presents the results of this survey work.

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in socio-economic issues research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

Diversity in research

Ensuring diversity in research and innovation is vital for effective delivery of the Governments Clean Growth, and broader Industrial Strategies. As the Industrial Strategy argues, organisations with the highest levels of diversity are 15% more likely to outperform their rivals.

The Whole Systems Networking Fund

Over the past two and a half years, the UK Energy Research Centre has managed 1.5m of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funding through the Whole Systems Networking Fund (WSNF). It has worked with stakeholders from universities, public-private partnerships, and NGOs, to pilot a model to diversify the UKRI energy portfolio through inclusiveness, encouraging gender balance and the nurturing of new voices and ideas.

Key findings

This report details the operation of the fundand provides an overview of the funded projects. It also summarises thekey learning from the programme, grouping findings into the following categories:

• Measures to broaden the talent pool: particularly around gender
• Connecting disciplinary focused and whole systems energy research
• Working with a wide range of stakeholders
• Learn lessons from best practice within the UK and internationally

At the conclusion of the Whole Systems Networking Fund, 80% of the funding had been allocated to projects led by women. Demonstrating that with the appropriate mechanisms in place mainstreaming gender balance across the energy portfolio is achievable.

The issue: a need to better understand the models that inform demand-side energy policy-making

Under the UK Climate Change Act 2008, the government is legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 80% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.

Historically, the focus of energy policy in the UK has been on supply-side policies, such as decarbonisation of electricity generation through greater use of low carbon technologies like wind and solar. Increasingly, however, demand-side energy policies are being recognised as having important contributions to make to achieving emission reduction targets, through reducing energy demand or by making energy demand more flexible and compatible with variable renewable energy sources. Such demand-side policies can seek to promote a wide range of technologies and behaviours, for example improved buildinginsulation, reduction in the use of energy intensive materials and increases in teleworking to reduce commuting.

To fully realise the potential of demand-side energy policies, it is important that they can be adequately represented in quantitative energy models, because such models play an important role in informing UK energy policy. However, we do not currently have a good understanding of how well the different energy models that inform UK government energy policy represent energy demand and demand-side energy policies.

Therefore we have undertaken a Rapid Evidence Assessment (a constrained form of systematic review) to examine the energy models that have informed energy policy documents published by the UK government between 2007 and 2017. The overarching question this review seeks to address is:

How suitableare the energy models used toinform UK government energy policy for exploring the full range of contributions that demand-side energy policies can make to climate change mitigation?

Main findings: strengths and weaknesses in existing modelling

Our Rapid Evidence Assessment reveals that the core strength of current energy modelling is the detailed representation of technologies, with many models featuring information on hundreds of potential technological options for increasing energy efficiency. Although uncertainties exist around these technological options, these models allow us to gain a coherent and realistic understanding of how different combinations of technologies could satisfy our future energy service demands under different low-carbon scenarios.

However, the modelling landscape reveals two key limitations with regard to the representationof non-technological drivers of energy demand:

• Firstly, economic, social and behavioural drivers of energy demand, such as thermostat settings, are rarely explicitly included within the models. As a result, changes in such drivers risk being overlooked as potential levers of climate change mitigation. In addition, the economic, social and behavioural assumptions that are included into the models are often not presented in a transparent manner.
• Secondly, while many of the models provide a wealth of detail on different technological options, they are not well-equipped to model how behavioural, social and economic changes impact on the use of technology. This makes it difficult to investigate how technological change comes about and how it could be steered into the right direction using different policy instruments. In many models, the uptake of different technological options is specified exogenously by the user, or is determined within the model by cost optimisation, which does not reflect the many non-cost factors influencing technology diffusion.

Key recommendations for future modelling

• Develop consistent and transparent processes for estimating and presenting the fixed inputs to energy models, such as energy service demands and socio-economic drivers.
• Quantify the potential of demand-side policies and include them as explicit options in energy models to make such policies more visible.
• Improve the representation of economic, social and behavioural processes in energy models where feasible and useful. This endeavour can build on existing research in the academic literature, which is currently not well represented in policydevelopment.
• Research further the potential implications of interactions between different drivers of energy demand and make sure they are consistent. An example of such an interaction would be the impact that a modal shift from cars to cycling would have on the growth and energy demand of the automotive industry.

This study investigates how an increase in exports (a key pillar in the UK Industrial Strategy) could impact energy and industrial policy by comparing two types of energy-economy models.

Achieving the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set out in the UK Climate Change Act will require a significant transformation in the UK's energy system.

At the same time, the government is pursuing a new UK Industrial Strategy, which aims to improve labour productivity, create high-quality jobs and boost exports across the UK.

The economic and the energy systems in the UK are tightly linked and so policies adopted in one area will produce spillover effects to the other.

To achieve the objectives set out in the two strategies it is therefore vital to understand how the policies in the energy system will affect economic development and vice versa.

Our study contributes to this by investigating how an increase in exports (a key pillar in the UK Industrial Strategy) could impact energy and industrial policy.

We address this question by systematically comparing the results of two types of energy-economy models of the UK, a computable general equilibrium model (CGE) and a macroeconometric (ME) model.

In both models we analyse a stimulus to demand from an increase in exports arising from a successful export strategy as motivated by the UK Industrial Strategy.

Main findings

The qualitative results of the export stimulus are similar across all models in that GDP and employment are always stimulated. In this sense, the results are reassuring for the UK’s Industrial Strategy that emphasises export promotion.

However, the models also find that total energy use and CO₂ emissions increase, and so does the energy intensity and emissions intensity of GDP.

The increase in CO₂  emissions occur because the study identifies the energy and CO₂ impacts of an export shock with other things remaining unchanged. Therefore the models do not simultaneously incorporate the UK carbon budgets or policies to support energy efficiency and decarbonisation of energy supplies.

However, our analysis reveals the likely adjustment of energy and climate policies to counteract the increase in CO₂ and energy intensity that may result from export promotion. It therefore emphasises the need to complement UK industrial policies with appropriate action on energy use and carbon emissions to meet statutory carbon targets set by the Climate Change Act (2008).

The results highlight the interdependence of the energy and economic systems. They show that there are benefits to coordinating strategic initiatives aimed at stimulating economic activity with those aimed at tackling carbon emissions, as envisaged in the UK’s Clean Growth Strategy.

This briefing paper examines how renewables in Scotland are shaped by decisions taken by the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the EU. Drawing on interviews with stakeholders, it explores the potential impact of Brexit on Scottish renewables.

Brexit has the potential to disrupt this relatively supportive policy environment in three ways in regulatory and policy frameworks governing renewable energy; access to EU funding streams; and trade in energy and related goods and services.

Our briefing identifies varying levels of concern among key stakeholders in Scotland. Many expect policy continuity, irrespective of the future UK-EU relationship. There is more concern about access to research and project funding, and future research and development collaboration, especially for more innovative renewable technologies. The UK will become a third country forthe purposes of EU funding streams, able to participate, but not lead on renewables projects, and there is scepticism about whether lost EU funding streams will be replaced at domestic levels.

While there is no real risk of being unable to access European markets even in a No-Deal Brexit scenario, trade in both energy and related products and services could become more difficult and more expensive affecting both the import of specialist labour and kit from the EU and the export of knowledge-based services. Scotlands attractiveness for inward investment may also be affected.

There is global consensus that carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) will be essential to successfully tackling climate change and meeting the ambitions of the Paris Agreement.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) recently consulted on the potential business models for carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS). This was seeking to understand how a core set of CCUS specific risks, which have been presented as an intractable problem for previous projects may be mitigated through the development of business models.

UKERC provided a response to the recent BEIS consultation on CCUS

This UKERC Research Landscape provides an overview of the competencies and publicly funded activities in energy storage research, development and demonstration (RD&D) in the UK. It covers the main funding streams, research providers, infrastructure, networks and UK participation in international activities.

UKERC ENERGY RESEARCH LANDSCAPE: WHOLE SYSTEM RESEARCH

• Section 1: An overview which includes a broad characterisation of research activity in the sector and the key research challenges
• Section 2: An assessment of UK capabilities in relation to wider international activities, in the context of market potential
• Section 3: Major funding streams and providers of basic research along with a brief commentary
• Section 4: Major funding streams and providers of applied research along with a brief commentary
• Section 5: Major funding streams for demonstration activity along with major projects and a brief commentary
• Section 6: Research infrastructure and other major research assets (e.g. databases, models)
• Section 7: Research networks, mainly in the UK, but also European networks not covered by the EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 8: UK participation in energy-related EU Framework Research and Technology Development (RTD) Programmes
• Section 9: UK participation in wider international initiatives, including those supported by the International Energy Agency

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.

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.

This briefing note describes the amount of gas contained within Great Britain’s gas transmission and distribution networks, and how this changes over a day to support variations in demand. The hourly data covers the 63-month period from 2013-01-01 to 2018-03-07.

The amount of gas contained within the higher-pressure tiers of Britain’s gas transmission and distribution network is termed ‘linepack’; literally, it is the amount of gas packed into the pipelines.

Linepack is proportional to the pressure of the gas in the pipelines, increasing the pressure increases the amount of gas, and thus the energy contained therein. The amount of linepack changes throughout the day due to the varying levels of pipeline pressure. This flexing of pressure provides a method to help match the supply and demand for gas within a day.

The scale of energy that can be stored and released by varying linepack highlights its importance as a means of operational flexibility, helping to balance the changes in national primary energy demand.

The scale of the within-day flexibility currently provided by the natural gas transmission and distribution networks points to a formidable energy systems challenge; how to provide low-carbon within-day flexibility to future energy systems at a reasonable cost.

The transport sector remains at the centre of any debates around energy conservation, exaggerated by the stubborn and overwhelming reliance on fossil fuels by its motorised forms, whether passenger and freight, road, rail, sea and air.

The very slow transition to alternative fuel sources to date has resulted in this sector being increasingly and convincingly held responsible for the likely failure of individual countries, including the UK, to meet their obligations under consecutive international climate change agreements.

Electrification of transport is largely expected to take us down the path to a zero carbon future (CCC, 2019; DfT, 2018). But there are serious concerns about future technology performance, availability, costs and uptake by consumers and businesses. There are also concerns about the increasing gap between lab and real world performance of energy use, carbon and air pollution emissions. Recently, the role of consumer lifestyles has increased in prominence (e.g. IPCC, 2018) but, as yet, has not been taken seriously by the DfT, BEIS or even the CCC (2019).

Developed under the auspices of UKERC the Transport Energy Air pollution Model (TEAM) has been designed to address these concerns and uncertainties in exploring pertinent questions on the transition to a zero carbon and clean air transportation future.

TEAM is a strategic transport, energy, emissions and environmental impacts systems model, covering a range of transport-energy-environment issues from socio-economic and policy influences on energy demand reduction through to lifecycle carbon and local air pollutant emissions and external costs.

TEAM is a major update of UK Transport Carbon Model of 2010. To use the updated model for research purposes, please contact Christian Brand, noting that due to its size (the complete suite of modelling databases uses about 500MB of storage space) the model can only be made available by request.

This briefing paper summarises the key policy implications from the last of three working papers published by the Heat Incumbency Transitions Team. This research has investigated the role and behaviour of heat market incumbents in relation to the decarbonisation of heat.

Key messages

• The required transformation of the UKs heat system will have major implications for people and organisations involved with the sector.
• We define incumbents as people or organisations currently active in the UKs heat sector. Incumbents have the economic, social or technological capacity to influence the future of the heat system.
• Incumbents in the UK heat market are diverse and the impacts of heat decarbonisation will vary between sectors. A risk and opportunity analysis of the UK heat sector has highlighted that different heat decarbonisations pathways (electrification vs. gas decarbonisation) pose different risks for different sectors.
• Gas network owners and appliance manufacturers are the most active in their engagement with heat decarbonisation. This activity includes attempts to exert political power over policy and regulation as well as innovation activities. The upstream and supply sectors engage less with heat decarbonisation.
• The lobbying and innovation activities constitute attempts to maintain a gas based system for heat in which the gas network is decarbonised, primarily using hydrogen. This approach is unproven and risky but the idea has rapidly gained traction in the policy debate.
• Heat incumbents have also actively resisted change. These efforts include talking down other technologies and framing them as unworkable and developing coalitions of similar interests.
• Because of the ability of incumbents to lobby and innovate, new entrants in the UKs heat sector who may possess the best ideas and technologies may struggle to compete with incumbents.
• Based on our research, we have developed a number of policy recommendations for UK heat policy with implications for regulators and policy makers working on heat decarbonisation, as well as those involved in policy design process

• Context and impact
• Description of the main phenomena; maximum temperatures, heat waves, and minimum temperatures
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena including water temperature, frazil ice formation, very rapid changes in air temperatures, wildfires and enthalpy
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

• To investigate the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030.
• To make projections on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to the electricity market arrangements in place today
• To focus in particular on the hourly variation and seasonal shape of supplier costs

This briefing note summarises Great Britain’s local gas demand from the 2nd of April 2017 to the 6th of March 2018 and compares this to electrical supply. The data covers the UK cold weather event on the 1st March, providing insights into the scale of hourly energy flows through both networks.

A peak hourly local gas demand of 214 GW occurred at 6pm on the 1st of March, which compared to a peak electrical supply of 53 GW occurring at the same time.

The data highlights a critical challenge – managing the 3-hour difference in demand from 5am to 8am on the local gas network during the heating season. Whilst flexibility in the gas system is provided using a change in pressure to store extra energy in the network to meet increasing demand, the electrical system has no comparable intrinsic equivalent.

The findings add to previous work funded by UKERC on thermal energy storage , heat incumbency, and flexibility of electrical systems to provide insights into the decarbonisation of heat in Britain, helping to inform decision-making, modelling of future networks and highlighting key areas for future research and innovation.

A greater research and innovation focus to reduce the 5am-8am 3-hour difference in heat demand is necessary.

This evidence is a joint submission by the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources (ISR) and UKERC. These two institutions have worked together closely in the past, including on a report commissioned by the Global CCS Institute, on The role of CCS in meeting climate policy targets.

We are submitting evidence because we believe CCUS is likely to have a critical role as part of an overall decarbonisation strategy for the UK – and, perhaps more importantly, for the world. We are keen to take part in the debate as to how this can be achieved;

Executive summary

• Current modelling evidence suggests that meeting carbon reduction targets will be at best significantly more expensive, and at worst impossible, without CCUS.
   
• This is primarily due to its offer of emissions reductions in industrial sectors, and of negative emissions with biomass, rather than as a power sector technology per se.
   
• Attempting to pre-define a cost-reduction trajectory for CCUS in advance is difficult and uncertain.
   
• Rather, the government should establish a maximum subsidy level at which it would be prepared to contribute to funding CCUS, and commit to fund projects should they reach this level or go below it.
   
• It should then introduce competitive mechanisms to assist discovery of the lowest cost, similar to the Contract for Difference (CfD) auctions.
   
• It also needs to support the whole innovation chain, coordinating diverse actors across industry and power sectors, CO2 transmission and storage; supporting research, development and demonstration efforts of shared benefit; taking over whole chain risk; identifying synergies between industrial sectors.
   
• Although CCUS currently appears to be critical to industry decarbonisation, there are other potential options which may compete with or indeed complement CCUS in the longer term. A bottom-up, granular approach to decarbonisation challenges and opportunities within specific UK industry clusters will yield greater long-term benefits than a single-technology focus on CCUS alone.

This inquiry is both welcome and timely. Whilst the Clean Growth Strategy emphasises the significant progress that has been made in reducing emissions, the Committee on Climate Change has identified a number of areas where policy needs to go further.

Innovation in a range of low carbon energy technologies and systems will be required to meet future carbon budgets and the 2050 target. Government policy has a vital role to play in supporting the development, demonstration and commercialisation of these technologies. Furthermore, policies to support innovation could also help to meet the wider economic objectives in the Industrial Strategy, by contributing to the development of new industries and jobs.

This submission draws on research and expertise from UKERC. The submission includes some introductory points in response to the committees questions on the Clean Growth Strategy, followed by some more specific responses to subsequent questions on government support for low carbon innovation.

The UKERC response to the ofgem consultation 'Getting more out of our electricity networks by reforming access and forward-looking charging arrangements'

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.

This policy briefingauthored by University of Yorks Department of Social Policy and Social Work (SPSW) and ACE Research, explores some of the key gaps in knowledge regarding justice in energy efficiency policy in the UK. The focus was on the impact of energy efficiency policies on disabled people, those with long-term illnesses and low-income households with children.

Key findings

The delivery of energy efciency policy is variable and patchy, with vulnerable groups ingreatest 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 authors recommenda greater recognition of the needs of vulnerable groups, more consistent approaches across the UK and better cooperation with non-energy sectors.

The researchidentifies 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. There needs to be a greater emphasis on the positive impact of intervention on 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. Greateraccess to high quality data, data matching and data sharing wouldenable households to be targeted more effectively.
• Vulnerable customers are often unaware they are eligible for support and mechanisms for nding these people need to improve. Workis requiredto improve the trustworthiness of some of the schemes promoted.
• Current programmes focus on technical improvements to buildings rather than the needs of vulnerable groups. Thereneeds to be shift towards developing abetter understanding of the needs of these people and how they engage with energy.
• The delivery of existing energy efficiency support programmes across the UK is patchy.Government should aim for consistent outcomes for households wherever they live.

• Description of the main phenomena
• Observations and geomagnetic indices
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena; solar energetic particles and groundlevel enhancement, ionospheric scintillation effects on satellite communication and GNSS signal, GIC and pipelines, hazard combinations
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

• This study investigates the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030
• Projections are made based on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to today’s electricity market arrangements
• Particular focus is given to the hourly variation and seasonal shape of costs faced by suppliers
• Hourly retail cost stacks in 2030 are modelled for the average domestic electricity consumer in the East Midlands

1. National Grid Two Degrees (NG 2 Degrees): A relatively high demand scenario, with relatively high renewables, nuclear and imports, but reduced levels of CCGT
2. ETI Long-Term Role of Gas (ETI LT ROG): The highest-demand scenario modelled, with high levels of renewables, CCGT and storage, but reduced nuclear capacity
3. ETI Consumers, Vehicles and Energy Integration (ETI EVEI): With demand the lowest of the three, this scenario has the highest levels of nuclear, but the lowest levels of renewables and storage

1. Trends in supplier costs that might occur between 2017 and 2030 if market arrangements remain unchanged
2. Differences between scenarios that can be seen, reflecting different technology and market assumptions
3. Issues that could result if arrangements remain unchanged over horizon to 2030

• A word document providing interpretation of the findings in this slide deck
• A high level viewpoint for senior stakeholders summarising the work, results and insights
• An Excel workbook containing the key inputs and a
  full set of hourly outputs by scenario

• Introduction to the ETI
• Developing the role for nuclear in a UK transition
• What could be the role for SMRs in the UK energy system
• A credible plan for deployment of a UK SMR by 2030
• Cost competitiveness of nuclear as a low carbon technology
• Conclusions

• Volume 3 — Extreme Wind — onshore effects;
• Volume 4 — Extreme Precipitation — onshore effects;
• Volume 6 — Coastal Flooding — offshore effects;
• Volume 11 — Marine Biological Fouling — offshore effects.
  
  

This working paper considers the risks and opportunities posed to UK heat sector businesses by a potential transformation towards a low-carbon heat system in the UK. It is an output from the Heat, Incumbency and Transformations (HIT) project which is part of the UK Energy Research Centre programme.

The HIT project is investigating the idea of incumbency, considering what the term means, how it is present in the UKs heat sector and what the implications of incumbency are for the UKs potential transformation from a high carbon heat system to a low-carbon heat system.

The previous working paper developed a working definition of incumbency (Loweset al., 2017). This working paper forms the second phase of the project, exploring who the incumbents are in the UK heat system and the implications of the potential transformation for incumbents.

An online m

To recover the cost of energy policies which support the transition towards a low carbon energy system, levies are applied to household and business energy bills. This briefing note focuses on the levies applied to households.

Household energy policy costs

Energy policy costs are applied to household electricity and gas bills, equating to 132, or 13% of the average energy bill in 2016. This research highlights how low-income households are hit hardest by the current arrangements as the poorest households spend 10% of their income on heat and power in their homes, whereas the richest households only spend 3%, so any increase in prices hits the poor disproportionately.

Energy service demands in the UK

Household electricity and gas use represents only 12% of total final UK energy use. Total energy use includes all the energy used to provide househ

• Extreme temperatures
• Seismic, geological and volcanic hazards including ash deposition
• Natural hazard combinations
  
  

UKERC have submitted a reponse to the Scottish GovernmentFinance and Constitution Committee's call for evidence on the Financial Memorandum that accompanies the Climate Change Bill.

This bill was introduced in May 2018 andamends the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to make provision for setting targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions and to make provision about advice, plans and reports in relation to those targets.

• Low carbon heating must appeal to consumers if the UK is to tackle climate change.
• Consumers might welcome solutions if they enhanced their experiences using heat at home.
• Consumers will need help to get high quality experiences from low carbon heating solution.
• Policies could harness the emerging ‘smart home’ to garner public support for decarbonising heat.
• Decarbonisation could help the vulnerable access basic energy services, but there are also risks.

Midstream Infrastructure

The Midstream Infrastructure briefing considers the critical infrastructures - both hard and soft - that are necessary to link gas suppliers to end users. In many ways this is the most complex, least studied and most important part of the UK's gas supply chain. This briefing describes the various elements of the Midstream, assesses their current status, considers the potential impact on Brexit, and the challenges they pose in relation to future UK gas security.

The key challenge that the Midstream has to manage is the strong seasonality of UK gas demand, which is driven largely by winter demand for domestic heating. However, in recent years the growth of low-carbon generation (wind and solar) has introduced the additional complexity of intermittency, which is resulting in swings in gas demand on a much shorter time-frame. This is a challenge that is only going to increase in the future as coal-fired generation closes (by 2025) and intermittent low-carbon generation continues to grow.

Fuel poverty remains a pressing issue for over 4 million households in the UK today. Families with children living on low incomes are at particular risk of experiencing fuel poverty, and its effects can penetrate deep into everyday life and into the practical, social and emotional worlds of those who encounter it.

The evidence gathered through the Policy Pathways to Justice in Energy Efficiency project is based on in-depth research conducted with national policy makers, with stakeholders who implement energy efficiency policy and with households on low incomes. It provides a clear picture of the energy needs of families on low incomes and of what needs to happen to make a real difference in their lives.

This guide for practitioners takes these findings and turns them into practical steps for people working in the fuel poverty and energy efficiency sectors.

Associated documents

• Access the policy briefing here.
• Access the working paper here.
• Access the practitioner guide for those working with disabled people.
• Read the press release here.

• The background context to the project and the project outputs
• Why the subject matters and action is required
• A navigation aid to the suite of documents, what they individually contain, and how they fit together
• The target audience; infrastructure owners, operators, asset managers, developers, investors, regulators and insurers
• Broader relevance and read across into transport, the built environment, and civil emergency planning and response to the impact of natural hazards
• Learning from the execution of this 5-year project relevant to investing and realising the benefits from complex, collaborative R&D
• Guidance on where to find more

• To investigate the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030.
• To make projections on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to the electricity market arrangements in place today
• To focus in particular on the hourly variation and seasonal shape of supplier costs

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena; seismicity
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

This UKERC working paper reviews the literature on modelling natural gas demand and supply. This includes modelling natural gas markets in isolation, and as part of its role in the wider energy system.

This review is part of the work on a new, global gas model at the Institute for Sustainable Resources at University College London, through a UKERC PhD Studentship. The focus of the new model is on global gas production and trade, and its coupling with the TIMES Integrated Assessment model at University College London (TIAM-UCL) to represent gas demand.

Trade-offs: simplifying complexity without diverging from reality

The main section of this working paper provides a review of existing methods which model both supply chain and demand dynamics of natural gas (Part 1: recoverable volumes and corresponding costs of natural gas; Part 2: wider energy-system models; Part 3: natural gas market models). As with any modelling, it was found that there is always a trade-off between necessary simplifications, and the uncertainties and complexities which surround energy-economic-environmental systems.

In Part 1, this paper reviews a range of studies that have estimated recoverable volumes of natural gas. This includes both deterministic (e.g. a single point estimates of natural gas) and stochastic (e.g. probabilistic estimates including ranges of uncertainty) modelling methods, and the strengths and limitations of the approaches employed. The overall conclusion is that some level of probabilistic assessment is required when estimating recoverable volumes of natural gas and the cost range of extraction, particularly given the huge uncertainties inherent in the development of these resources (techno-economic, geological, environmental).

A key contribution of this review, in Part 2, is how natural gas is represented in energy system and integrated assessment models. This represents how gas supply and demand dynamics are also driven by wider developments in energy and environmental systems. Standalone natural gas models, described in Part 3, include gas market complexities. These have more disaggregated time-slices/temporal horizons in order to capture seasonality and the interaction between market agents. However, there is a trade-off between the temporal disaggregation, and the overall scope of the model. In short, the decision to take gas consumption from TIAM-UCL yields the benefit of a whole systems approach in the long-run, whilst limiting seasonal disaggregation in the short-term.

Introducing a new bottom-up global natural gas production and trade model

In section III, the paper introduces a new natural gas production and trade model, which is linked to TIAM-UCL. This linkage includes an aggregation of supply cost curves from a field-level gas volume and cost database, into the regions in TIAM-UCL. The gas model is able to account for aspects of gas markets which TIAM-UCL does not have in its architecture; e.g. fiscal regimes, take-or-pay contracts, price indexation.

Given the proprietary nature of cost data for natural gas extraction, a linear regression model was used to assign supply costs (the capital and operating expenditures required to get the gas out of the ground) to gas fields where no public information was available. This gas model aims to provide insights by quantifying various parameters which determine supply costs for individual natural gas fields, both developed and undeveloped; these include water depths, reservoir depths, the levels of hydrogen sulphide or carbon dioxide, and assumed risks to investment (e.g. due to location, political conditions, etc.).

The combination of the two models is intended to model scenarios, providing new insights into future natural gas price formation mechanics and longer-term policy developments which could alter/influence supply and demand.

This document sets out the evidence base in support of a local energy strategy for Bury.

Key conclusions

• By 2050 Bury can reduce its building emissions by 98% from 1990 levels. A 95% reduction could be achieved by 2040.
• These carbon savings would not come easily.
• There are limited windows of opportunity to replace domestic heating systems.
• If Greater Manchester and Bury aim for a more ambitious carbon target of nearly zero carbon by 2050 then low carbon heating needs to accelerate. Heating systems need to become low carbon at the earliest opportunity
• For some areas and homes in Bury, if lower carbon gas is not available it is clear that electric heating is a cost effective way to decarbonise
• For other areas there is the potential to have a lower cost solution using district heating networks.
• There is significant uncertainty today in the future costs of both electric heating systems including heat pumps and heat networks.
• Decarbonising non-domestic buildings is necessary.
• Some non-domestics are modelled to use heat industrially and so are difficult to switch to a low carbon source.
• Local renewable energygeneration can play an important role.
• Meeting carbon targets will come at a cost.
• Most consumers are not currently familiar with the transitional technologies discussed in this report.
• Many consumers will value the sunk cost of their current heating system that is not at end of life – even if a new system would save them money overall.
• Even familiar technologies cannot be assumed to be easy to implement.
• Transitional technologies could help to tackle some of these consumer issues.
• The relative future costs of fuels, heating systems and fabric retrofit options closely influence which options are likely to be preferable.
• The level and cost of network new build and reinforcement and the opportunities for solar PV and battery storage are projected to be different depending on location, demonstrating why local area energy planning is needed to manage the process.
• Consideration will need to be given to how heat network costs are socialised across the local area.

Concern about fairness in the retail energy market is clear from media headlines and the passing of legislation to impose a wide price cap in the retail energy market in 2018. Fairness in Retail Energy Markets? Evidence from the UK provides extensive evidence from a range of disciplines to inform this important debate. This report does notattempt to define what constitutes fair or unfair, since this ultimately rests in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless, its message is clear: development of the retail energy market in the UK can only be understood by recognising the political economy around questions of distribution and fairness.

A multi-disciplinary perspective

The publication reports research conducted at the Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, as part of the UK Energy Research Centres programme. The research is multi-disciplinary, drawing together researchers from a range of disciplines: economists, legal scholars, human geographers and a policy analyst. This range of specialisms provides a rare opportunity to consider fairness and retail energy markets in the round. The research team is both unusually broad and academically independent. The reports five main chapters present findings from different disciplines and methodologies to stimulate consideration of evidence which is rarely encountered together. In assembling this evidence the researchers are grateful to our partners Broadland Housing Association, Cornwall Energy and Ofgem, as well as to the Parliamentary Archive and all our interviewees.

The report presents findings under five broad themes: (i) how long-term outcomes contextualise the retail energy markets political salience; (ii) how distributional objectives feed into institutions; (iii) the multi-faceted nature of engagement with energy; (iv) the detailed experiences of those at risk of FP; and (v) how data/statistics can be improved.

Key issues highlighted

Together the evidence raises fundamental issues for the future governance of the market. The traditional focus of economics on efficiency has never claimed that markets are effective tools for delivering equitable outcomes, and the traditional framework of pure economic regulation is challenged by the focus on fairness. Can the market ever escape political intervention when energy prices rise substantially? This question is particularly relevant when key affordability support policies the Winter Fuel Payment and the initial Fuel Poverty Strategy were introduced as energy was approaching its mostaffordable level over a 30-year time horizon.

Energys political salience has meant that the independence of the market regulator, Ofgem, has evolved in a way not originally envisioned. Government has increased the number and complexity of Ofgems statutory duties. The resulting ambiguity regarding how to prioritise the regulators different duties has led to increased government-regulator communication and the potential for government to exert pressure on the regulator through less formal channels.

We present evidence indicating that there are problems with implementing the main frame used to address energy fairness in the UK, namely fuel poverty. We suggest that the approach to analysing fuel poverty, and the associated policymaking, would benefit from a change of direction, towards a focus on the directly observable real-world phenomenawhich underpin this complex problem, rather than on the official fuel poverty statistics. Such an approach would help to recognise that energy efficiency interventions are unlikely to solve all the energy affordability challenges facing households.

It argues that, since its emergence in the UK in the late 1990s, community energy has grown through finding opportunities for smaller scale, decentralised energy activities in the UKs highly centralised energy system. The combination of development of renewable energy technologies, and the launch of the governments Feed-In Tariff Scheme (FITS) in 2010, produced a boom in the sector, especially around solar electricity generation.

Recent cuts to FITS rates and other policy changes place community energy at a crossroads. Some renewables activity will continue, but groups are exploring a wide range of activities, partnerships, and business models. We are engaging with the sector around outputs from our research, which include a survey and case studies, to co-develop recommendations and pathways for the future.

• •Volume 10 — Space Weather;
• Volume 11 — Marine Biological Fouling.

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena; causes and types of flooding, some examples of river flooding, flood risk and vulnerability classification,definition of flood zones, Government’s strategy and policy, organisations responsible for flood risk management
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

Natural gas plays a critical role in the UK’s energy system, providing twice as much energy as electricity, thus the secure and affordable supply of natural gas is an essential element of UK energy security and a key objective of Government policy. The starting proposition for this report is that Brexit is coming at a time when there are already major challenges to the UK’s future gas security.

This report deploys two aspects of previous UKERC research on UK gas security: first, a supply chain approach to assessing UK gas security; and second, a whole systems approach that places current and future gas demand within the context of the decarbonisation of the UK’s energy system. This is because there are key uncertainties in the wider system that have important implications for future gas demand. It is in this context that the Brexit decision has created additional uncertainty at a time when the UK energy sector needs to make critical investment decisions. In the current situation we can conceive of a ‘Brexit Interregnum’ whereby important decisions and policies are delayed because of the demands of the Brexit negotiations.

This report has three objectives:

• To identify the key challenges facing the UK’s natural gas market;
• To understand the role that EU policies and institutions currently play in the operations of the UK’s natural gas market; and,
• To identify the potential impact of Brexit and the key issues that should be addressed in a post-Brexit ‘UK Gas Security Strategy.’

This briefing is based on two propositions.

First, that gas security matters, because today in the UKgas plays a dominant role in the provision of energy services, accounting for almost 40% of total inland primary energy consumption in 2017. Thus, a shortrun failure of gas security would undoubtedly have significant political and economic consequences.

Second, that the current measure is far too narrow to offer a comprehensive assessment of UK gas security, particularly in a post-Brexit context. Discussions at the Gas Security Forum suggested that:the measure of gas securityfocuses only on infrastructure capacity and not supply (capacity does not equal flow); it fails to take account of the time-lag for gas delivery; it does not measure diversity or spare capacity; it ignores the impact of multiple asset failures; and, does not consider the costs associated with ensuring greater security.

It is in this context that this paper seeks to address the following questions:

• What are the constituent factors to consider in assessing gas security?
• What alternative measures exist?
• What potentially threatens gas security in the UK?
• What would a better approach to gas security look like?

The thinking behind this paper is that a more extensive approach to measuring UK gas security is needed to address the less dramatic challenges that face UK gas security, as well as the chance of managing a Black Swanevent.

The RIIO (Revenue=Incentives+Innovation+Outputs) model, introduced in 2013, is designed to ensure that payments to companies running the gas and electricity transmission and distribution networks are fair to network users and permit the recovery of reasonable costs in developing, maintaining and operating the networks.

The network licensees allowed revenue is linked to their performance and should therefore offer them incentives for securing investment, driving innovation and delivering the service that customers expect. However, some commentators have suggested that the licensees have been making unjustified profits. With network charges making up around a quarter of the average household energy bill, it is anticipated that the new price control framework will be tougher and provide lower expected returns for networklicensees.

The RIIO-2 frameworkconsultation is welcome. Ofgems final view on price control allowances will be published by the end of 2020 with the new network price controls ('RIIO-2') due to be implemented in 2021.

In our submission we respondedto the individual points raised in the call. We also note the following:

We support the proposal to reduce the price control period from 8 to 5 years. The energy system is undergoing unprecedented change, not only with continued transformation of the generation background but also major changes to the way electricity is used, such as for transport and heating. However, the rate and precise locations of these changes is uncertain. A shorter price control period will provide the opportunity for incentives and cost recovery to be adapted to the changing circumstances.

Maintenance of acceptable levels of reliability while facilitating the energy system transformation at least cost requires substantial innovation in technologies, business processes and commercial arrangements. The development of new innovations and associated benefits to consumers often takes years to be realised, sometimes beyond a price control period in which network company shareholders would expect a return. We therefore support the proposal to retain dedicated innovation funding but encourage greater clarity on the scope of activities that can make use of such funding and on best practice in the generation and dissemination of evidence on proposed innovations.

We welcome moves to increase the accountability of the network companies and would urge Ofgem to concentrate on those measures that have a genuine and positive impact on the network companies activities in the context of the whole energy system. We note that thisis not restricted to the business plans submitted under RIIO-2 but extends to a whole raft of codes and interactions. These include the evolving responsibilities of the Electricity System Operator (ESO), the relationships between the ESO, the transmission owners and the Distribution Network Operators, and the processes for ensuring that the full set of codes, standards and market arrangements are coherent and fit for purpose. This is a challenging task that requires constant attention to the big picture and sufficient resources, commitment and expertise on the part of the network owners, system operators and Ofgem.

In applying tighter controls that avoid excessive returns to the network licensees owners, the upside and downside risks should be clearly assessed and incentives for managing risk placed on those parties best placed to do so.

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.

• A: Baseline Information and Assumptions
• B: Power Generation
• C: Surface Plant Process Design
• D: Cavern Storage
• E: Economic Viability
• F: Low Carbon Case
• G: Cheshire Case Study: Cavern Cyclic Loading Impact

We welcome the Welsh Government’s interest in locally owned renewable energy. Our response draws on a range of research undertaken by the Heat and the City research group at the University of Edinburgh, including a UK-wide study of local authorities and energy; and on the Financing Community Energy research project being led by Tyndall Manchester. 

In our response we made the following general comments, before responding to individual points raised in the call:

• We suggest that greater attention should be paid to city/town/settlement scale infrastructure for a low carbon energy system, including area based upgrading of the built environment and low carbon heating infrastructure. Heat and energy efficiency for a low energy building stock are crucial to meeting Welsh and UK Government legally binding targets for carbon abatement.
•  At national scale, Wales has opportunities for sharing risk, costs and benefits of energy developments – i.e. the direct benefit to the citizens of Wales through public ownership and the aggregate costs across society of decarbonisation.
• Local Authority planning and ownership could be considered further as key components to securing greater local control and accountability, and achieving Welsh Government objectives. Our research indicates that further developing specific roles, powers, resources and responsibilities of local institutional actors in energy planning and ownership, especially Local Authorities would also add value to Welsh society and economy.

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.

The wider impacts of energy policy on the macro-economy are increasingly recognised in the academic and policy-oriented literatures. Additionally, the interdependence of energy and economy implies that a (policy) change in the non-energy system impacts on the energy system. However, such spillovers on the energy system have not been extensively researched. We begin by analysing the impacts of export promotion policies - a key element of the UKs Industrial Strategy - on the energy system and energy policy goals. As the impacts of such policies are, in large part, transmitted via their effects on the economy, we adopt a computable general equilibrium model - UK-ENVI - that fully captures such interdependence. Our results suggest that an across-the-board stimulus to exports increases total energy use significantly. This does not come directly through energy exports, but indirectly through the energy sectors linkages to other sectors. Export led growth therefore impacts on energy use - and significantly so. This in turn is likely to have an adverse impact on emission targets. Policy makers should be aware of the fact that a successful implementation of the Industrial Strategy may create significant tensions with the UKs Clean Growth Strategy, for example, and with the goals of energy policy more generally. The importance of this effect will in practice depend upon: the mix of goods and services that are exported (an issue that we shall address once the export strategy is published); the success of low-carbon policies. Ultimately, a knowledge of the nature and scale of these spillover effects of economic policies on the energy system creates the potential for more effective and efficient policy making

• Planning
• Subsidy/Financial Support
• Market Structure, Liquidity and Pricing
• Energy Regulation

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

The Future Role of Gas

The majority of studies of energy security focus on upstream security of supply. More recently, as the low-carbon transition has gathered momentum, there has been increasing interest in security of future demand as a challenge to the integrity of the gas supply chain. 

This briefing is divided into five sections. The first section examines the current role of natural gas in the UK energy mix, as well as recent trends in power generation. The second section reports on recent research by UKERC on the future role of gas in the UK. The third section examines what National Grid’s (2017a) most recent Future Energy Scenarios have to say about the future role of gas. The fourth section reviews other industry analyses about the future role of gas. The fifth, and final section, examines the ways in which Brexit complicates the situation. The briefing concludes by highlighting the policy challenges in relation to future

The project investigated issues surrounding the decarbonisation of heating, which is increasingly seen as a priority by energy policy makers. It considers the move towards low carbon heating from the perspective of incumbency, a topic which has received only limited focus.

Prior research has suggested that incumbent businesses can have both positive and negative influences on decarbonisation. There are examples of large companies investing in low carbon energy and driving change but there are also examples of incumbents trying to resist change therefore slowing or blocking decarbonisation.

This paper focuses on what the policy implications of incumbency in the UK heat sector are for the decarbonisation of UK heat. The paper reports on a large number of interviews with experts working across the UK heat sector. This evidence is further built on using grey sources of literature and data.

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena; seismicity, volcanicity, geological instability including landslides, ground dissolution, shrink-swell clays, mining
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena; seismicity, volcanicity, geological instability
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

• The types of data that are needed, the sources from which it is available and any restrictions on use.
• The data processing required and associated costs.
• The assumptions, exclusions, limitations and value of data in supporting decision making.
• Other data that might be available and valuable for validation of modelling outputs and supporting local area energy planning in the future.
• Methods for gathering additional data and how these could be phased into local area planning

• Bidders Pack deliverable D4, EnergyPath Networks Modelling Local Energy System Designs Report, incorporating:
• Bidders Pack deliverable D2 EPN Use-Cases Limitations and Uncertainty

• Reductions in energy consumption and carbon emissions, and
• Wider benefits such as improvements in health and increased employment.

UKERC response to he Welsh Governments consultation on the potential actions required to reduce emissions to 2030 are welcome, particularly in the international context of decarbonising the economy and the challenges posed by climate change.

• Background and motivation
• Introduction to the energy sector, potential vulnerabilities and relevant natural hazards
• List of natural hazards
• Format
• Technical primers

• Across all model runs, the average total costs were £7.23 billion. However, the Business as Usual scenario costs were £6.59 billion, suggesting that decarbonisation costs £0.66 billion. Business as usualwill see homes remain on gas boilers and continued significant investment in high carbon infrastructure.
• A 95% local carbon reduction target is achievable, providing some form of low carbon energy centres can be deployed, such as large-scale heat pumps.
• Meeting a 95% carbon target will require at least 82% of domestic properties to transition away from their current heating system. Across all model runs, on average, 97% of buildings changed heating systems.
• Building fabric retrofit could be a quick win in areas of Bridgend where fuel poverty is high.
• There is no one solution. Transition will require a mix of different technologies for different types
  of geography, buildings and people.
• Building level changes result in significant network changes, in terms of both electricity network
  upgrade and new build district heat.

• Consider local constraints on the siting of certain technologies and options resulting from EnergyPath Networks view of the least cost decarbonisation scenario.
• Were informed by a practical engineering review of barriers to low carbon technology deployment within specific local areas which examined the outputs of the analysis and project stakeholder group feedback.

Too often fuel poverty is thought of as an issue that only impacts older disabled people, but the reality is that fuel poverty blights the lives of disabled people of any age: from children, to adults of working age, to older people. 

The evidence gathered through the Policy Pathways to Justice in Energy Efficiency project is based on in-depth research conducted with national policy makers, with stakeholders who implement energy efficiency policy and with households on low incomes. It provides a clear picture of the energy needs of families on low incomes and of what needs to happen to make a real difference in their lives.

This guide for practitioners takes these findings and turns them into practical steps for people working in the fuel poverty and energy efficiency sectors supporting disabled people.

Associated documents

• Access the policy briefing here.
• Access the working paper here.
• Access the practitioner guide for those working with families here.
• Read the press release here.

• Introduction to marine biological fouling
• Description of the main phenomena
• Observations, measurement techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena
• Regulation
li>Emerging trends

• Volume 6 — Coastal Flooding;
• Volume 8 — Hail;
• Volume 9 — Lightning.

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena, where coastal flooding is related to extreme weather events (e.g. high winds/hurricanes) and seismic and geological events (e.g. earthquakes and landslides leading to tsunamis)
• Regulation
• Emerging trends
  
  

• To investigate the costs that domestic electricity suppliers in Great Britain might face in 2030.
• To make projections on the assumption that, unless formally announced, no changes are made to the electricity market arrangements in place today
• To focus in particular on the hourly variation and seasonal shape of supplier costs

The prices paid for electricity by domestic customers in the UK has been a regular discussion point in both policy debate and the media. A particular concern is the contribution that policies to incentivise low-carbon generation and energy saving make to the bills paid by householders. In response to these concerns, the UK Energy Research Centre’s Technology and Policy Assessment team examined in detail the data available on prices in the UK and other countries to address the question: How do the impacts of government policies funded through consumer electricity bills differ between countries?

This report reviews evidence on electricity prices paid by household (i.e. domestic) consumers with a focus on the UK and selected case study countries (Germany, France, Sweden and Australia), supplemented by consolidated EU-wide data to provide a broader context. Gas prices were not examined in detail because to date, policy has generally had a much greater impact on electricity prices, and UK gas prices are in the lower quartile of the EU range for all domestic consumers and almost all commercial and industrial consumers.

Key findings

• UK domestic electricity prices are higher than many EU countries - but not amongst the highest. They are around the median of those in Western Europe.
• Countries make different choices over which categories of consumer bear which costs, for example how costs are shared between industry and households. Countries also differ in terms of resources, the mix of power stations, and network costs. As a result caution should be exercised when comparing electricity prices between countries. There are significant differences in price breakdown between countries, even for those with broadly similar total prices.
• Wholesale energy and supplier costs together make the biggest component of UK domestic electricity price.
• UK policy costs are the lowest amongst the study countries, and total UK low-carbon policy support costs per MWh are below the EU average, despite an above-average share of electricity that receives support. Policy has contributed to increases in domestic electricity prices in the UK and other countries over the past five years but UK domestic electricity bills have not increased at the same rate as prices, due to the effects of energy efficiency policies designed to reduce overall consumption.
• There are a plethora of policies (both current and past) and taxes. This, together with a conflation of social policies and low-carbon policies, and of policy impacts with concerns over market structures, charging regimes and supplier profit margins, creates a very complex overall picture.
• The evidence for policy impacts is largely well understood but complexity creates the opportunity for differing interpretations or selection of the facts. This may help to explain some of the continuing controversy in the area since it allows different stakeholders to interpret and represent the facts differently, or select different subsets of those facts, to suit vested interests or political positions.

Electricity price formation is complex and affected by policies in the UK and all of the case studies considered in this review. Different policy approaches, geographical factors and mixes of power generation mean that comparison requires considerable caution, avoiding over-simplification. Nevertheless there is no evidence to support the contention that policy costs are either the principal source of high domestic power prices in the UK or are high compared to the country case studies or indeed the majority of Western European nations.

• Energy system balancing is critical and extends beyond the electricity system
• Changes to the energy system are shifting the emphasis on how much and what type of flexibility measures are needed –future changes will only increase these shifts
• There are opportunities to utilise a variety of flexibility measures to deliver system operability, including:
  • Energy storage–Gas and hydrogen fuelling peaking plant to help balance electricity supply
  • Heat storage in homes allowing the load on electricity networks to be reduced at peak times
  • Gas as peak support for heat pumps
  • Managed charging of plug-in vehicles
  • Interconnectors
• The ETI’s Storage and Flexibility Model represents the role of storage and flexibility across multiple vectors, network levels, geographic regions and energy services through to 2050.

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.

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena; key influences on UK weather and climate, UK rainfall mechanisms and extremes, potential interactions with other natural hazards
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools• Methodologies
• Related phenomena including snow, snowpack and avalanches, ice, impacts of extreme snowfall and ice on the energy sector, humidity, fog and mist, impacts of humidity and fog on the energy sector
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena
• Observations, measurement techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena
• Regulation
• Emerging trends; high winds, large waves, heavy rainfall,volcanic ash, space weather, forthcoming climate projections

• Introduction
• Description of the main phenomena; key influences on UK weather and climate, extreme winds, tornadoes
• Observations, measurements techniques and modelling tools
• Methodologies
• Related phenomena including sandstorms
• Regulation
• Emerging trends

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.

• Refinery Fuel Gas
• Syngas
• Producer Gas from Biomass

1. Phase-change materials in a storage unit – using the Sunamp or other system to provide storage over a day or a few days.
2. A seasonal storage pit – using solar thermal energy to store energy from summer to winter.
3. Electric storage heaters – powered by excess solar PV and cheap Economy 7 electricity overnight.
4. A thermochemical system – included for its potential as a disruptive technology, which may need a buffer tank until system designs are refined

Energy System Demonstrators are physical demonstrations testing new technologies for low-carbon energy infrastructure.

A review of energy systems demonstrator projects in the UK was undertaken for UKERC by the Energy Systems Research Unit (ESRU) at the University of Strathclyde. The review encompassed 119 demonstrators and consisted of two phases: 1) the identification of demonstrator projects and 2) an analysis of projects and their outcomes.

Energy demonstrators

The review defined an energy system demonstrator as “the deployment and testing of more than one technology type that could underpin the operation of a low-carbon energy infrastructure in the future”. Only demonstrators that post-date the 2008 Climate Change Act were included and that included a physical demonstration at one or more UK sites. 119 projects were identified that met the search criteria.

There were two phases of review activity. Phase 1 involved identification and documentation of demonstration projects, involving a systematic search to identify and record the details of projects. Phase 2 was a review of project outcomes and outputs, particularly end-of-project evaluations, covering technical, economic and social outcomes where available.

The review outputs (available here) are a final report summarising the findings, 119 demonstrator project summaries (the Phase 1 reports), 119 demonstrator output analyses (the Phase 2 reports) and a GIS (Geographic Information System) map and database showing the locations and project details of the demonstrators.

The final report, attendant project summaries and GIS data are intended to provide policy makers and funding bodies with an overview of the existing demonstrator “landscape”, enabling decisions on future demonstrator calls and the focus of those calls to be made with a clearer knowledge of what has already been done.

Project files

• Access the demonstrators GIS map here.
• Access the Phase 1 summaries here.
• Access the Phase 2 summaries here. 

UKERC have submitted a reponse to the BEIS call for evidence on the future for small-scale low-carbon generation. This consultation sought to identify the role that small-scale low-carbon generation can play in the UK shift to clean growth by further understanding: 

• The challenges and opportunities from small-scale low-carbon generation in contributing to government’s objectives for clean, secure, affordable and flexible power; and
• The role for government and the private sector in overcoming these challenges and realising these opportunities.

In our submission we responded to the individual points raised in the call, drawing on two streams of work undertaken as part of the UKERC research programme. The first stream concerns community energy, drawing primarily on data from the UKERC Financing Community Energy project. This project has collected and analysed data from a number of sources:

• Quantitative data gathered as part of a UK-wide survey of community energy finance and business models. This dataset covers 145 community energy projects run by 48 different community energy organisations.
• Qualitative data on community energy organisations’ suggestions for changes in public policy and industry practice, and their plans for the future, gathered as part of the same UK-wide survey.
• Further qualitative data on community energy organisations’ views on pathways to future decentralised energy business models, gathered at workshops held as part of the Manchester Mayor’s Green Summit process, and the Community Energy England annual conference 2018.
• A wide range of other data and literature, including access to the dataset collected for Community Energy England’s 2017 State of the Sector Survey, covering 220 community energy organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The second stream draws on a number of recent UKERC publications on electricity systems and networks :

• Developing low carbon networks for a low-carbon future
• Security of electricity supply in a low-carbon Britain
• The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency
• Delivering a highly distributed electricity system: Technical, regulatory and policy challenges. 

• 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.

This response provides recommendations on the reform of the energy supply market, based on research on “energy retail market governance” undertaken within UKERC.

• Overall, we recommend that reform of the retail energy market should not be considered in independence from the work on ‘systems flexibility’, energy transitions, ‘whole systems’, network charging reform and wholesale market policy.
• We recommend that the evaluation of energy retail market success should explicitly include an assessment of its compatibility with a low-carbon transition. Specifically, the retail market should allow for long-term investment recovery in low-carbon solutions .
• We also provide an overview of approaches to organising default energy commodity supply in some US energy retail competition states.
• We suggest that Ofgem (and Government) consider improving the potential for intermediaries and assess the likely implications of resale of commodity energy by a wider range of eligible players, subject to customer protection requirements.