Meeting Report. Tim Rowkins: Net Zero Keynote and Launch of Decarbonisation Pathways Study
Meeting Report. Tim Rowkins: Net Zero Keynote and Launch of Decarbonisation Pathways Study
Climate:Change hosted a Net Zero Keynote and the launch of the Decarbonisation Pathways study at the Friends Meeting House in Brighton on Monday, 2 December 2024. The main speaker was Cllr Tim Rowkins, Cabinet Member for Net Zero and Environmental Services at Brighton and Hove City Council. The discussants were Andrew Barnett, Principal of The Policy Practice, and Marie Claire Brisbois, Co-Director of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex. The event was chaired by Simon Maxwell, Co-Chair of Climate-Change.
Audio recordings of the presentations can be found here:
Simon Maxwell introduced the meeting. He emphasised that Climate:Change was independent, non-partisan and non-party political. It was a think-tank, not a campaigning organisation. Its focus was on careful analysis of issues and evidence, in pursuit of socially inclusive climate solutions for Brighton and Hove. He pointed to existing work on energy available via the website, including a Briefing Paper on Energy and Climate Change in Brighton and Hove.
Tim Rowkins’ presentation can be found as a pdf here. The Decarbonisation Pathways Study can be read here. Introducing the study, Tim made clear that it dealt mainly with the energy system, and with Brighton and Hove territorial emissions. It was not designed to cover behaviour change, for example, or modal shifts in the transport system. Nor was the study a fully formed plan. Instead, it identified opportunities for decarbonisation, providing detailed and geographically granular analysis, with as many as 110 priority opportunities for the City.
Brighton and Hove’s territorial emissions currently amounted to 795,000 tons of CO2e. Tim presented the approaches to reducing this number under six different headings. These were:
i. Fabric improvement;
ii. Heat networks;
iii. Heat pump deployment;
iv. EV charger rollout;
v. Solar PV; and
vi. Upgrades to the electricity grid.
In each case, the Decarbonisation Pathways Study provided a full analysis of the current situation, mapped down to Lower Super Output Area level, and a list of priority areas for intervention. Full details are in the presentation, with further analysis in the full Study. The 110 priority projects ranged from retro-fitting of domestic and non-domestic buildings in the City, to new District Heat Networks and a rapid roll-out of rooftop solar. A summary of the priority projects is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Summary of priority projects in the Decarbonisation Pathways Study
Tim referred to the experience of other cities, including Bristol City Leap, a public-private partnership to accelerate clean energy investment, and the ambitious heat network in Worthing.
Andrew Barnett made use of a Powerpoint presentation, here. He welcomed the study as a valuable document, full of technical detail. He noted that the key emissions related to domestic emissions and transport, but that there were great inequalities in the City. For example, energy poverty was a striking feature: this could mean that retrofitting to improve insulation would mean that people used more energy, not less, to benefit from warmer homes (the so-called ‘rebound effect’). He discussed the psychological and behaviour aspects of delivering change, and the need for a political economy analysis of change processes: who would be in favour, and who against? There was also an issue to do with innovation: if technology was constantly improving, and prices falling, this could create a barrier to adoption in the short term. Finally, in taking the study forward, Andrew called for more information about the costs and decarbonisation benefits of the different options put forward in the Study, and for more analysis of supply chain capacity, e.g. for heat pumps. The Council could help a great deal by careful measurement of its own improvements.
Marie Claire Brisbois also praised the technical depth of the study. It would be a valuable resource for researchers and planners. Much of what needed to be done was outside the remit of the Council: overall finance, including subsidies, for example, improvement to the national grid, or behaviour change. On the other hand, the Council could achieve a lot. Her comments covered three topics, viz financing, delivery models, and politics. On financing, Marie Claire talked about finding drivers for the billions spent annually on home improvement to also include energy saving; and about green mortgages, green bonds, and other mechanisms to support households. On delivery models, she emphasised the importance of building the capacity to deliver the needed investments. And on politics, noting that climate action had moved in the UK from being consensual to being more politicised, she talked about the importance of finding the right ‘stories’ to incentivise change, including for example, lower energy bills or better health as examples of the co-benefits associated with climate action. People were relational human beings and often influenced by what their neighbours did. A challenge and an opportunity was to search for tipping points that would lead to widespread change.
In the discussion, Simon Maxwell suggested two main themes. First, what was right and what might be missing from the Study. For example, it was notable that the Study had ruled out consideration of hydrogen for domestic use. Was this right? Second, what could be done to cost and rank the various proposals, and reduce the options from the high number of 110. The first theme received more attention than the second. The discussion is here (though the sound quality is not very good):
On what was right in the Study, there was wide support for the granularity and technical detail of the work. Participants welcomed the emphasis on inequality and energy poverty in the City. The decision to rule out hydrogen for domestic use was strongly endorsed. A push for rooftop solar was endorsed. And there was enthusiasm for community energy projects, including but not only heat networks, since these would both build engagement and keep resources circulating within the City.
On the other hand, some items were more controversial, or were missing from the Study:
There was a debate about whether retrofitting was really a priority, given the effectiveness of modern heat pumps.
There was push-back against the encouragement of EVs, especially given high construction costs.
The potential to use biofuel from within the City was noted, for example to power the bus network.
A plea was made for the Council to encourage and enable group purchasing e.g. of solar panels, so as to reduce price.
There was an intervention about exploiting the potential for variable pricing of energy, for example with respect to wind speed.
The need to think about cooling needs was raised. There was an important discussion about encouraging or requiring landlords to improve the energy efficiency of the properties they owned.
And the potential was raised of using planning rules more assertively, especially with respect to new developments.
There was little discussion of cost-benefit, though the estimate of £3.5 bn to 2040 was noted. Much of this would come from households, and there would be cost savings to accompany costs. Nevertheless, it was clear that prioritisation would be needed.
Responding to the discussion: Marie Claire noted the range of important issues discussed, and some not mentioned, like digitalisation – and looked forward to further discussion; and Andrew encouraged the group to think carefully about the political economy of change, including the likely local opposition to specific schemes like low traffic neighbourhoods. Tim acknowledged the range of contributions during the discussion. He said that further prioritisation was indeed the next step, and said the Council would be looking at baskets of options that could be taken together. He was keen to enable energy cooperatives to do more. And, finally, he referred to the planning issue, and the consultation currently underway about the new City Plan.
Closing the meeting, Simon said that indeed it was important to move from a ‘Study’ to a ‘Strategy’ – and hoped that the Council would continue to engage with this well-informed and substantive community. He thanked the speakers and the audience for their contributions.
Photographs: Courtesy Keith Worthington