AGENDA
Meeting Environment Committee Date Monday 20 July 2020 Time 12.00 pm Place Virtual Meeting Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view past meetings.
Members of the Committee Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Shaun Bailey AM Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair) Nicky Gavron AM Tony Arbour AM David Kurten AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM
A meeting of the Committee has been called by the Chair of the Committee to deal with the business listed below. Ed Williams, Executive Director of Secretariat Friday 10 July 2020
[Note: This meeting has been called in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. These regulations permit formal London Assembly meetings to be held on a virtual basis, with Assembly Members participating remotely, subject to certain conditions. The regulations apply notwithstanding any other legislation, current or pre-existing Standing Orders or any other rules of the Authority governing Assembly meetings, and remain valid until 7 May 2021. The meeting will be broadcast live via the web-link set out above. The regulations may be viewed here.]
Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Lauren Harvey, Senior Committee Officer; Telephone: 020 7983 4383; Email: [email protected]; Minicom: 020 7983 4458
For media enquiries please contact Aoife Nolan, External Communications Officer, Telephone 020 7983 4067; Email: [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact the author whose details are at the end of the report.
v1 2015
If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected].
Certificate Number: FS 80233
Agenda Environment Committee Monday 20 July 2020
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements
To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chair.
2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383
The Committee is recommended to:
(a) Note the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;
(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and
(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).
3 Membership of the Committee
The Committee is recommended to note the membership and chairing arrangements for the Committee, which were agreed by the London Assembly at its Annual Meeting on 15 May 2020:
Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair) Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM Shaun Bailey AM Nicky Gavron AM David Kurten AM
3
4 Terms of Reference
The Committee is recommended to note the following terms of reference, which were agreed by the London Assembly at its Annual Meeting on 15 May 2020:
To examine and report on matters relating to the environment in London and to lead on scrutiny of the Mayor’s Environment Strategy.
Lead responsibility for scrutiny of: Green Spaces Commission; Sustainable Development Commission; London Waste and Recycling Board; London Fuel Poverty Partnership; London Electric Vehicles Taskforce.
5 Standing Delegations
The Committee is recommended to note the following standing delegations of authority to the Chair of the Committee:
(a) At its Annual Meeting on 1 May 2013, the Assembly agreed to delegate a general authority to Chairs of all ordinary committees and sub-committees to respond on the relevant committee or sub-committee’s behalf, following consultation with the lead Members of the party Groups on the committee or sub-committee, where it is consulted on issues by organisations and there is insufficient time to consider the consultation at a committee meeting; and
(b) At its meeting on 6 June 2019, the Assembly agreed to delegate authority to Chairs of ordinary committees, sub-committees and working groups to agree, in consultation with relevant party Lead Group Members and Deputy Chairs: (i) The detailed terms of reference for any investigation to be undertaken by the relevant committee, sub-committee or working group within its work programme as agreed by the GLA Oversight Committee, and any related project plans and arrangements for related site visits or informal meetings; and (ii) The topic and scope for any additional projects to be added to its work programme, where it is not practicable to secure prior approval from the GLA Oversight Committee and subject also to subsequent ratification by the GLA Oversight Committee.
6 Minutes (Pages 5 - 56)
The Committee is recommended to confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 March 2020 to be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
4
7 Summary List of Actions (Pages 57 - 118)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383
The Committee is recommended to note the completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings and additional correspondence.
8 Action Taken under Delegated Authority (Pages 119 - 152)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383
The Committee is recommended to note the recent action taken by the Chair of the Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the party Group Lead Members, namely to agree the Committee’s report, The Climate Emergency: Extreme Weather and Emissions, as attached at Appendix 1 of the report.
9 Mayor's Response to Tube Dust Output (Pages 153 - 158)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Lauren Harvey, [email protected], 020 7983 4383
The Committee is recommended to note the Mayor’s response to the Committee’s letter on Tube dust, as attached at Appendix 1 of the report.
10 COVID-19 and London's Environment (Pages 159 - 162)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Anastassia Beliakova, [email protected]; 07840 649320
The Committee is recommended to:
a) Note the report as background to putting questions to the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy and note the subsequent discussion; and
b) Delegate authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
5
11 Environment Committee Work Programme (Pages 163 - 164)
Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Anastassia Beliakova, [email protected]; 07840 649320
The Committee is recommended to note its work programme as agreed under delegated authority by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee on 13 May 2020.
12 Date of Next Meeting
The date of the next meeting of the Committee will be decided by the London Assembly in due course.
13 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent
6
Agenda Item 2
Subject: Declarations of Interests
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 20 July 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests1;
2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and
2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.
3. Issues for Consideration
3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:
1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v3/2020 Page 1
Member Interest Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM Gareth Bacon AM MP Member of Parliament, Orpington; Member, LB Bexley Shaun Bailey AM Siân Berry AM Member, LB Camden Andrew Boff AM Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Léonie Cooper AM Member, LB Wandsworth Unmesh Desai AM Tony Devenish AM Member, City of Westminster Andrew Dismore AM Len Duvall AM Florence Eshalomi AM MP Member of Parliament, Vauxhall Nicky Gavron AM Susan Hall AM Member, LB Harrow David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM Deputy Mayor Dr Alison Moore AM Member, LB Barnet Steve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM Murad Qureshi AM Caroline Russell AM Member, LB Islington Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM Peter Whittle AM
[Note: LB - London Borough]
3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that:
- where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at
(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or
(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions
- they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and
- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting
UNLESS
- they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code).
3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading.
Page 2
3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.
3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.
3.6 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £50 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered.
3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on- line database may be viewed here: https://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality.
3.8 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £50, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.
3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.
4. Legal Implications
4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4383 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 4 Agenda Item 6
MINUTES
Meeting: Environment Committee Date: Thursday 12 March 2020 Time: 2.00 pm Place: Chamber, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA
Copies of the minutes may be found at: www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/environment
Present:
Caroline Russell AM (Chair) Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair) Tony Arbour AM Jennette Arnold OBE AM Nicky Gavron AM
1 Apologies for Absence and Chair's Announcements (Item 1)
1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Shaun Bailey AM and David Kurten AM.
2 Declarations of Interests (Item 2)
2.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
2.2 Léonie Cooper AM declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Community Renewable Energy Wandsworth (CREW).
2.3 Resolved:
(a) That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests; and
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 5 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 12 March 2020
(b) That the additional declaration made by Léonie Cooper AM as a member of CREW be noted as a non-pecuniary interest.
3 Minutes (Item 3)
3.1 Resolved:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 February 2020 be signed by the Chair as a correct record.
4 Summary List of Actions (Item 4)
4.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
4.2 Resolved:
That the completed and outstanding actions arising from previous meetings of the Committee, and additional correspondence, be noted.
5 Question and Answer Session with the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy (Item 5)
5.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat as background to putting questions on the Mayor’s environmental programmes and commitments to the following invited guests: Shirley Rodrigues, Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy; Aram Wood, Assistant Director for Environment, Greater London Authority (GLA); Peter Daw, Interim Policy and Programme Manager – Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, GLA; Andrew Jones, Policy and Programme Manager – Waste and the Green Economy, GLA; Andrew Dunwoody, Policy and Programme Manager – Waste and Circular Economy, GLA; and Elliot Treharne, Head of Air Quality, GLA.
5.2 A transcript of the discussion is attached at Appendix 1.
Page 6 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 12 March 2020
5.3 During the course of the discussion, the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy agreed to: Provide a copy of the independent evaluation into the 12-month ‘Licence Lite’ pilot project; Explore what could be shared with the Committee, and when, in terms of the success metrics developed for London Power. The Deputy Mayor also invited Committee Members to write to her with any additional requests about London Power, which would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in light of cited commercial confidentiality issues; Provide details on the percentage supply that was being contributed by the Mayor’s current decentralised energy programmes; Provide further information on the number of people who had accessed the online maps and tools that showed Londoners how green the city is; Provide data showing the number of trees that had been planted during the 2016-2020 mayoral term; and Confirm whether negotiations had taken place with boroughs on the charges for green waste collection.
5.4 At the end of the discussion, the Chair thanked Members of the Committee who would not be standing for election, Jennette Arnold OBE AM, Nicky Gavron AM, and Tony Arbour AM.
5.5 Nicky Gavron AM placed on record her thanks to the Chair, Caroline Russell AM, and the Deputy Chair, Léonie Cooper AM, for chairing the Committee during the 2016-2020 term. Thanks was also given to the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy and her team.
5.6 The Deputy Chair also expressed her thanks to parting Committee Members, the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, and her colleagues.
5.7 Resolved:
(a) That the report and discussion be noted; and
(b) That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
Page 7 Greater London Authority Environment Committee Thursday 12 March 2020
6 Environment Committee Work Programme (Item 6)
6.1 The Committee received the report of the Executive Director of Secretariat.
6.2 Resolved:
That the additional activity undertaken since its last meeting, namely the informal briefing received from the GLA Air Quality Team, be noted.
7 Date of Next Meeting (Item 7)
7.1 The London Assembly’s Annual Meeting, due to take place on 15 May 2020, would decide which Committees to establish for the 2020/21 Assembly Year and a timetable for those Committees.
8 Any Other Business the Chair Considers Urgent (Item 8)
8.1 There were no items of business that the Chair considered to be urgent.
9 Close of Meeting
9.1 The meeting ended at 5.01pm.
Chair Date
Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Committee Officer; Telephone: 020 7983 4383; Email: [email protected]
Page 8
Appendix 1
Environment Committee Meeting – Thursday 12 March 2020
Item 5 – Question and Answer Session with the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): This now brings us to today’s main item, a question-and-answer session with the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy. We are going to be discussing the climate emergency, energy and London’s housing, building resilience in the capital, waste and recycling, and air quality. Can I welcome Shirley Rodrigues, who is the Deputy Mayor Environment and Energy; Aram Wood, who is the Assistant Director for Environment [Greater London Authority (GLA)]; Peter Daw, who is the Interim Policy and Programme Manager for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation [GLA]; and Andrew Jones, the Policy and Programme Manager for Green Infrastructure [GLA]. We have other officers who will be joining us in the second half, who I will introduce later.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you, Chair. Before I do, I wanted just to make an opening statement. I think we had agreed that we would just do a short opening statement.
[Thank you Chair. As this will be the final time this term that I will appear before you, I would like to take the opportunity to look back at what the Mayor has achieved over the past four years. I would also like to pay tribute to the excellent work you have done as a Committee. Both for the scrutiny you have continued to apply, and for the ideas you have fostered through your research, reports, and inquiries. I would particularly like to commend]1 Assembly Members Nicky Gavron, Jennette Arnold [OBE] and Tony Arbour, who are stepping down at the upcoming election. Thank you.
In terms of the Mayor’s ambition, the Mayor has always said he wants to be the greenest Mayor ever and since coming into office, he has set some of the toughest and boldest targets in the world. We will continue to work towards making London a zero-carbon, zero-waste city, with the best air quality of any major world city, as well as thriving green spaces.
On air quality, last year [2019] the Mayor introduced the world’s first and award-winning Ultra Low Emission
Zone (ULEZ). We have seen that nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution in central London has now reduced by one third, and the immediate and significant impact of that will reduce health impacts and save the National Health Service (NHS) billions over the coming years. To help prepare for the ULEZ introduction he has launched a £48 million fund to help small businesses, sole traders, charities and low-income Londoners to trade in their polluting vehicles. He has led by example by cleaning up buses and taxis. The promised 12 Low Emission Bus Zones have all been completed a year ahead of schedule and these have seen an average reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions of more than 90% along some of the most polluted routes in the city, helping to reduce Londoners’ exposure to toxic air. Over 85% of Transport for London’s (TfL) bus fleet meet or exceed Euro VI. This is on track for compliance in the whole fleet by 2020 and we now have the largest zero-emission fleet in western Europe. We have more than 3,200 zero-emission-capable taxis licensed since January 2018, and all of this work has been underscored by the delivery of a big increase in the rapid charge point network with 232 on our streets and over 2,000 standard charge points since the start of the term.
1 The audio for this section was lost. The text has therefore been taken from the Deputy Mayor’s speech. Page 9
Of course, we are going to be talking about climate change, where the Mayor has declared a climate emergency. He was the first mayor of a C40 megacity to do that. London has been A-rated two years in a row by the Carbon Disclosure Project for climate action and we were one of the first global cities to implement a Climate Action Plan compatible with the Paris Agreement and aiming to keep global warming below a 1.5°C rise. As you have mentioned, the Mayor announced a £50 million package to support this work on a Green New Deal for London, which will be aimed at reducing emissions and other harmful environmental impacts whilst equipping the capital’s citizens and businesses with the skills and jobs needed for the transition to zero carbon.
[London Power was launched in January, a different kind of energy company designed]2 to provide energy to all Londoners that will save them money whilst also being good for the environment. It charges no exit fees and any surpluses made by the Greater London Authority (GLA) are going to be reinvested into environmental and social projects.
In terms of planning, London is the only major city in the United Kingdom (UK) to have a Zero Carbon Homes standard, which will be extended to commercial developments, and the current work is already achieving 39% more carbon savings than national building regulations. The London Plan also includes pioneering policies on whole life cycle carbon. Alongside this, since the start of the term, the Mayor’s Energy for Londoners programme has seen retrofitting of over 26,800 homes and we have just launched a new programme that will see much deeper retrofits, delivering on average 2.5 times more carbon savings than an average retrofit.
The Mayor has divested GLA cash assets from fossil fuels and he has been working with the London Pension Fund Authority to develop a climate policy that has seen it divest from companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon. Finally, I am sure many of you saw the historic ruling where the Mayor, working with several London boroughs and environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, Plan B and Greenpeace, won a judicial review against the third runway at Heathrow. This was a landmark judgment calling into question a Government’s decision not to take into account the Paris Agreement.
We continue to recognise the twin dangers of climate and ecological emergencies and that they have to be tackled in tandem. Last summer [2019], London became the first ever National Park City and this is partly because we have invested over £13 million in greening the capital, we have planted over 280,000 trees and seen over 275 hectares of green space improvements.
Finally, on waste, we are doing all we can to end the scourge of single-use plastic. Working with the Zoological Society of London and Thames Water, we now have 63 operational water fountains across London. This is on top of the 3,500 refill points established across the city, compared to only 200 when the scheme first started in 2018. We continue to work with boroughs to cut waste and increase their recycling rates. All boroughs have submitted their Reduction and Recycling Plans to show how they are going to demonstrate conformity with the Mayor’s strategy on greater consistency of materials collection and boosting recycling, especially of food waste.
As I am sure you will agree, the Mayor has made significant progress over the past four years on being the greenest Mayor ever and making London greener, healthier and cleaner. I just wanted to end by saying thank you to the Environment Team because they have done absolutely fantastic work over the last four years. We have written a new Strategy, we have created new programmes and delivered a number of programmes, and what I am really proud of is their tenacity in getting those things done. I should not really say, “Getting those things done”. In delivering on those impacts. We are really seeing big changes in London because of their
2 The audio for this section was lost. The text has therefore been taken from the Deputy Mayor’s speech. Page 10 work, so I just wanted to pay tribute to the team, and of course I look forward to working with you all in the future to realise the shared ambition of making London the greenest city in the world.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you very much. You covered all our questions for this morning, but we are going to delve in in a bit more depth and detail. Thank you very much for that opening statement.
Yes, my first question is about the Green New Deal. I am just wondering what the Mayor is going to do with that £50 million and how he is going to direct it towards achieving his goals.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The Mayor announced this £50 million fund to support the delivery of a New Green Deal for Londoners, and it is going to be aimed at supporting projects to reduce London’s climate change emissions and other harmful environmental impacts, including from our toxic air. But also, as I mentioned earlier, it is about making sure that the citizens in London as well as our businesses are equipped for that transition to a zero-carbon future. It is a three-year fund running from this financial year, through 2021, to 2022/23, and it is going to cover a number of areas. The team are working up the potential criteria for this, but when we announced it the Mayor was very clear that the principles would be around collaboration, that we want real impacts for Londoners, particularly the most disadvantaged, and we want to accelerate the pace of change, the scale-up that we need in London to really meet the challenge that we are seeing. We are seeing climate change impacts already and we need to really up the pace on how we reduce the emissions.
There are a number of things that we have talked about that this fund might be available for. We are just looking at what that might be, but anything from creating a new challenge fund for boroughs or looking at ways to use the funding to unlock investment that we need to achieve net zero, particularly private sector finance. We know we have huge amounts of funding needed to support that transition. Looking at new ways, looking at consumption-based emissions and how we might improve the multifunctional use of our Green Belt. There are various potential options on what we do and, as I have mentioned before, skills is a particular part of that as well. The Mayor having announced that, the team are now looking at what those potential uses will be and we will be announcing some of those shortly.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): At our last meeting about climate resilience, we were looking at energy and the insulation of our homes and one of the points that came up, because we as a Committee had a massive focus on fuel poverty, quite rightly, is that there is also the ‘able to pay’ sector where there is no funding or no affordable funding for people to invest to insulate their homes, to realise those future savings on energy expenditure. I just wondered if you had thought about some kind of mayoral scheme for providing affordable loans for people to be able to insulate their homes so that we get that scaled-up work on insulation.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The focus has very much been on trying to look at carbon emissions and fuel poverty together, which is why we have been looking at the social housing programmes but also private tenants. We have opened up part of the scheme to look at improving the energy efficiency of private tenants’ homes. Either the tenants or the landlords can apply but obviously they need each other’s permission.
The ‘able to pay’ area has been a really difficult one. You remember previous Government programmes that have started and then been cut off very quickly, which has damaged the supply chain but also the momentum around it. Our focus, given the scale of challenge to retrofit London’s homes including those who are able to pay, has really been on getting Government to prioritise it as a national infrastructure priority. Obviously, we were disappointed in yesterday’s Budget that there was no mention of that. There was a lot of mention about
Page 11 a number of other schemes. We are given to believe that this will be part of the conversation around the National Infrastructure Strategy, which is due shortly, which Government has said.
We will continue to lobby for that because as you will appreciate, certainly in our Environment Strategy and in our 1.5C [Compatible Climate Action] Plan, in order to get London to be net zero we are going to have to retrofit the hundreds of thousands of homes that we have in London. We have a particularly big problem in London in that the stock of homes that we have is very different, from Georgian houses through to mansion blocks, through to tower blocks and so on. They all need different approaches, but they all need to be retrofitted.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Can I just join in on that one? Obviously one of the issues for London is that the stock - unlike the local authorities elsewhere, and also obviously in London the local authorities themselves - is not owned by the GLA. That means that we need to rely a lot more on our local authority partners to deliver the improvements to housing stock in their areas or to come forward with that same level of encouragement. Quite a few have now declared climate emergencies around London, but not all. I wonder what work you are doing with the ones who have declared a climate emergency, but also with the ones that have not, to ensure that they are setting and also meeting targets that are as ambitious as the Mayor has now set out, because otherwise we are not going to get anywhere, are we?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Indeed, and I think the Mayor has pointed out that this needs action from all sectors. On the climate emergency, we believe in the order of 25 or 28 boroughs have declared climate emergencies and obviously each of those boroughs is looking to see how that can be taken forward in their own area. They all have slightly different targets. What we have done is set out some advice to those boroughs about the sorts of technical assistance programmes and funding programmes that the Mayor has set up so that they do not reinvent the wheel. They can be using some of the modelling that we have already done so that they are not paying expensive consultants to redo work that has already been done. We held a workshop about it a couple of weeks ago where pretty much every borough, I believe, was represented, where the team went through --
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Was that with London Councils?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Well, it was in partnership with London Councils and with their borough officer leads, LEDNet, which is the [London] Environment Directors’ Network.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Sure.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We went through the various programmes that we have, and we have committed to do further work with both London Councils and LEDNet to take that forward. We are really encouraged. There is a lot of excitement out in the boroughs, I think, because they are being driven by their residents but also by their businesses asking for help on what we might be able to do. It really does need all of us to work together on that, so we are really pleased to be doing that.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): That sounds quite encouraging. Can I ask the opposite question, though? There is obviously support at Government level. You just mentioned the Budget and being a bit disappointed. The Government has talked about net zero by 2050. Is there any movement on that? Is the Mayor lobbying for that to be brought forward to 2030? I think if we do not set out with 2030 as the very ambitious target, even if we miss it and still hit net zero by 2035, at least that is better than having a target of 2050, which does concern me. Are we managing to get any movement on that at Government level?
Page 12
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The Mayor has said that if he is re-elected, he will set an ambition for London to be net zero by 2030. We have been really clear that the sources of emissions over which he has powers are really only about half. Those are the emissions that he can control or has levers over. We would absolutely rely, whether it is a 2050 or 2030 target, on Government stepping up and taking the action that they have committed to do under the plans that they have set out and that the Committee on Climate Change have looked at around decarbonising the grid and continuing to do that at pace, but also a number of other areas they have talked about: to accelerate, for example, the phasing out of fossil-fuelled internal combustion engine vehicles. We have been lobbying very hard that that should be a 2030 target. The Government have said 2040. They are now talking about bringing that forward but still have not confirmed that or are doing it quickly enough.
There are a number of other areas. We talked about energy efficiency. We talked about electrification. There were some sums in the Budget yesterday that are helpful. The big problem for us or the big unknown for us is: is London able to access that funding? We know, for example, on air quality funding that we do not get access, and transport funding, which is a real problem for delivering in the UK as a whole. London has a big footprint. It is a big opportunity. We drive big supply chains. Not investing in London is a failure, I think, on the UK Government’s part if that were to pass.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): I am pretty sure we are going to come back to air quality and Caroline was just about to ask you something about energy, I think, so I will be quiet now.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you very much. Yes, thinking about power and Energy for Londoners, there was a 12-month pilot project in 2018, the Licence Lite, which was exploring buying clean energy across London. There was meant to be, I think, an independent evaluation of Licence Lite and we just were wondering if that has been completed. If so, can the Committee be sent a copy of the evaluation, and if not, when is it going to be completed?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I do not have that as a note down, but I think I can follow up and check, unless the officers know whether that is available. We would be very happy to follow up.
Aram Wood (Assistant Director of Environment, Greater London Authority): Yes, I think the work has been completed so I do not see any reason why it cannot be forwarded.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): That would be great. Thank you very much. I want to move on to talk about London Power, which was launched on 13 January [2020]. There are various models of what London Power is going to do, which depend on uptake. Is the uptake so far better or worse than expected?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is too early to say. We were due to launch London Power last year [2019], but then with the Government election and the pre-election period we had to delay. Really, London Power has only been running for about two months now, so it is far too soon. Essentially it is a start-up so it is very hard to take meaningful lessons, data or trends at this point.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): How long do you think you need before you are going to be able to get some meaningful data out of it so that you can get a sense of which of the customer uptake scenarios of the ones that have been modelled is going to be the most likely?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Normally you would take a full year, would you not, before you would start thinking, “This is on track or potentially on track to what we want”. We Page 13 have committed to London Power publishing an annual report after a year of operation and we have said that we will publish some data probably after the first full quarter, so probably not until July [2020] because the first quarter will be the end of June [2020]. By the time it is all collated, probably the earliest would be late in July this year [2020].
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): OK, but you do not think that will give a sense of whether it is performing as you had hoped?
Aram Wood (Assistant Director of Environment, Greater London Authority): I think for an energy retail company you would probably need to have at least two seasons.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Two years?
Aram Wood (Assistant Director of Environment, Greater London Authority): No, one season, sorry, one full season, and we launched in January [2020]. You will not capture the deep customer-switching period, which will happen in the autumn traditionally. We will need to get through that phase this year to really understand what a 12-month business cycle might look like with people switching and so on. As the Deputy Mayor said, we will be releasing quarterly statistics on progress as well as an annual report. We will be able to understand it better, I think, after a year than we will mid-year, for example.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): OK. We will, I am sure, make a note to pick up on that in a year’s time.
Tony Arbour AM: Just on that precise point, are you telling us it is going to be a whole year - I have just heard what you said about July [2020] - before you are going to be able to tell us whether you have met any milestones? There must have been a milestone for how many people you are going to sign up in the first month and things of that sort. Can I ask you directly, have you signed up anybody at all?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I have signed up me.
Tony Arbour AM: Yes.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): And the Mayor, and several others.
Tony Arbour AM: Yes, I will ask you, Shirley, although the officer was giving us the timetable.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Let me answer that. This is a novel business for the GLA. It is a novel thing to do, to set up an energy company and run something London-wide, so we have taken time to assess that the model we have gone down is the right one for London and we are very confident of that. We have gone through a big procurement exercise to test that we have the right partner and the right contract, which we believe we have. Informally, from the feedback we are getting through our partner, Octopus Energy, and others, it is going very well in terms of the pricing that people are getting - a reduction in energy prices in the order of, I think, £350 compared to the standard variable tariffs, which people like - that it is green energy, the fact that we are recycling any profits when they are made from the Mayor into environment, and the customer service. These are all unique -- the deal we have struck is a very unique one in the market. To make sure that we fully understand its efficacy and its effectiveness it does take a full business cycle, I think.
Tony Arbour AM: Yes, those are all very good, warm words and you will recall I wrote to you, actually, asking for something not just warm but hard as well, and you said all of that was commercially confidential. I am Page 14 wondering whether or not Octopus might be taking you for a bit of a ride, because if you are not going to be investigating them until a whole season has gone -- and I bet they come up with saying that the present circumstance means that this particular season is going to be atypical.
Let me give you a simple anecdote. Octopus telephoned one of my constituents and offered them a deal. They would be the same warm words that you, Shirley, have used, but they did not say that they were London Power. They said they were Octopus Energy. It was only when pushed they revealed that they were London Power. The advertisements on TfL bus stops still refer to Octopus. They do not say, “London Power”. I do wonder whether or not we are monitoring this really well. You remember I have asked you questions on this and you are not expecting to make any profit for some time. I wonder if, in effect, Octopus is using the good name of the GLA for selling their thing. How hard are you riding these people to ensure that Londoners know that this, if you like, is a social enterprise - I suppose that is a kind of way of putting it - being run for the benefit of Londoners rather than for the benefit of Octopus?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): If you talk to Octopus, I think they would feel that they have not been driven as hard as we have driven them. I have had an excellent team of officers from here and TfL who have driven a very hard deal with Octopus because we know this is about delivering value for taxpayers. We have extensive - I do not know how many - 30-odd SLAs, service level agreements, each of which are monitored regularly. Some of them are monitored daily with Octopus. We have frequent meetings with them to monitor what they are supposed to be doing and delivering. In terms of the advertising, it is absolutely clear that we promote London Power, they promote London Power. They are themselves an energy company so will be promoting, as would other energy companies, their own company services, but when you match, you reflect and you look at the two deals, you compare lots of things. Are they green? Do they reinvest in London? Are they truly not-for-profit? Are they providing green gas? All of those sorts of things. People then choose.
Tony Arbour AM: With the greatest respect, you are not answering my question, which effectively is Octopus trading on our good name as far as this is concerned. If you are riding them daily and we are this hard-nosed client, you must therefore be able to tell me how many people they have signed up. You must therefore be able to tell me that they are advertising the deal in London as London Power and not Octopus. I have challenged you on those two specific points where they have --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I can give you those numbers but they are commercially confidential, so I cannot release them to you.
Tony Arbour AM: Do you know, I find that a very weak excuse.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is my procurement advice.
Tony Arbour AM: Let me phrase the question another way. Did you have a target for the number of people who would be signed up in month one?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): As I mentioned to you when we came to the Committee last time, we have a number of scenarios on what London Power might be able to deliver. It depends on rate of take-up, what part of the switching season it is, what the offer is, what comparable offers are against the London Power offer; lots of different variables. We have a good sense of what we have asked London Power to do in terms of service levels, which they are meeting. There is a whole chain -- the stock market crash -- well, not quite a crash but the drop the other day, the oil market fight between Russia and the Saudis. It all affects pricing, which then affects the number of people who want to switch. There are lots of Page 15 external factors that provide the context for how London Power operates, and we have a very good team that is monitoring what they are doing.
Tony Arbour AM: Do you know, honestly, Deputy Mayor, that is very weak. There are always going to be circumstances when you are doing this but when you went out to get these people because this was one of the Mayor’s things that he was going to have, this thing -- and I have said to you the prices do seem very reasonable. When the time comes, I shall probably switch.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I am pleased to hear that.
Tony Arbour AM: I would want to know that I am switching to this socially responsible company. It seems to me that Octopus may well be taking you for a ride and because of your unwillingness to provide any kind of hard figures at all for how they are doing, they could be coming to you and saying, “The virus is going to stop us from doing this, the oil price is going to stop us from doing that, the sun is going to shine”.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I am not quite sure what more I can say. We have a number of SLAs. We have a lot of monitoring that we do. I am absolutely confident that they are not taking us for a ride.
Tony Arbour AM: What democratic control is there over the SLAs to see that they are being met? Who knows whether or not the SLAs are going to be met?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have an internal governance mechanism, just like there is for a number of other contracts and services that the GLA connects with or TfL connects with.
Tony Arbour AM: I will not take it any further. I find it very unsatisfactory, Chair, very unsatisfactory.
Nicky Gavron AM: Can I just ask, how is it marketed, actually, as London Power? Where could one see anything about it?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is a combination of advertising. We have been advertising on the sides of buses, bus shelters or posters. That is one part of it and that is the --
Nicky Gavron AM: As London Power?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): As London Power.
Nicky Gavron AM: And what it is offering?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Then there is a lot of social marketing that the company does as London Power. You will not get Octopus talked about in the marketing unless there is a requirement by the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to say who the supplier is. Then you would say it is powered by Octopus Energy. But the London Power branding, the London Power macaw, all of those talk about London Power, not Octopus. It is very distinct from all the other energy companies out there and it is much better value, we would say.
Tony Arbour AM: The message has not got out to their tele-sales people, then. I have repeated for you the anecdote that unless the Octopus person was pressed, they did not say it was London Power. Page 16
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We will follow up. Thank you very much for that point and we will definitely follow up.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Are you able to say what the share breakdown is? In terms of London Power as a body, what is the GLA share in terms of investment? Is it 51%?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It does not quite work like that. What we have entered into is a contract for service. Just like any other standard contract, what we have done is negotiate a price with them which we have enshrined in a contract and that is what we monitor. It is not like we have created a new company. This is a white label scheme where we have partnered with an existing company. We do not hold shares in Octopus.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: But Octopus is in receipt of finance from the GLA and therefore is subject to GLA scrutiny.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): As would any contract that the GLA enters into, but where there is a commercial in confidence section then there are things that would not be made public. If there is particular information that the Assembly Members want, then please do write to me and we will see what we are able to do on a case-by-case basis.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: To speak to my colleague through you, Chair, and assure anybody listening, we have met this before. I cannot remember which contract it was - twenty years is a long time - but we were able to get around it. One of the things for me about scrutiny is that if the question is raised, then it must be answered. Otherwise it just hangs there.
Tony Arbour AM: It has not.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Right. It just hangs there.
Tony Arbour AM: As far as I am concerned, it has not been answered. We have just had wishes.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: I would just ask you, Chair, that you pick that up and that there should be a resolution in terms of the Assembly Member’s concerns and, for me, in terms of how we, the Assembly, can scrutinise the GLA investment in London Power. It might not be the Environment Committee. It might be --
Nicky Gavron AM: Oversight.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: The [GLA] Oversight Committee. But there cannot be an answer of, “No”, to how the Assembly tracks GLA money. We have to find a way around that.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Absolutely. Just to be absolutely sure, I am not saying no. What I am saying is: please write to me with your request and we will see what we are able to provide, respecting the commercial confidentiality of the company.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): I think what we need is an assurance of: is take-up where you are hoping? Is it where you feared? Is it even worse that your worst-case --
Nicky Gavron AM: Scenario. Page 17
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): -- suppositions, scenarios beforehand? There may be a way that you may be able to share some information with us so that it does not come as a shock in a year’s time if things are not as good as even your worst-case modelling.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): With the caveat that for an energy company, as Aram [Wood] has said, it requires a full year before you are able to tell, with the scenario that you had painted, or scenarios, where you are against those scenarios. The big switching period is usually in the winter. We missed that because of the General Election.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Who knows? Also, lots of other things to take into account.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes. You have said previously that you were going to be developing metrics to measure the success of London Power and that you would share them with the Committee. When should we expect to see those metrics for success and is there a reason that the success metrics were not developed before the company launched?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have success metrics in that the service level agreements that we have set have a number of metrics that we are monitoring the performance of the company against. The internal governance mechanisms are looking at that and monitoring that regularly. We do have success metrics. Do we have success metrics that are public? I think it refers to the last question, which is: what are we able to make public when it relates to a commercial enterprise? As I have said, we are very happy to take that away and let you know when and what we are able to do, but if you have a very specific issue that you are after then let us know and I can follow that up with colleagues.
Nicky Gavron AM: One thing I think is very encouraging about London Power is the fact that it is going to be very stable in terms of the price not rising for people on prepayment meters and also people who are fuel poor. How much are you targeting your social media -- well, it would not necessarily be social media but anyway, the marketing and the information, at those particular households?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is a slightly different route. What we have decided would be a better route would be to work with the boroughs and the G15 housing associations, where the housing stock is more likely to have people who are on prepayment meters, who are more likely to be those in fuel poverty. Also, the boroughs and the housing associations are more likely to know, of their tenants or residents, where there might be people who are in fuel poverty, either because they are being referred to their own services or they have direct contact with them. We are able to then talk to the boroughs and say, “Here is material about an offer that we have”, and many of those boroughs - I think at least ten - have signed up to work with us. I know Assembly Member Tom Copley, the soon-to-be Deputy Mayor for Housing, has talked to the G15 about the same issue. It is a slightly different route to advertising and the sort of marketing on social media, which could get to them but is not particularly targeted.
Nicky Gavron AM: Will they monitor it?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Who? The boroughs?
Nicky Gavron AM: The G15. The boroughs and the G15. Page 18
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The boroughs and the G15? Well, I guess so, but I think --
Nicky Gavron AM: How can they do it? They are the people who are doing the marketing but who is going to monitor the take-up?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is what we want to know, to get the numbers that they manage to get access and the numbers that will then come back to London Power. I do not know if you have any more specific information.
Aram Wood (Assistant Director of Environment, Greater London Authority): As part of our overall dashboard of performance we are looking at a number of different windows of performance, some of it about broad-scale take-up and some of it specifically about social housing, for example, through the void system, or social housing more broadly. It is on an overall global dashboard that we look and use to manage performance.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. OK, so we are going to move on to look at energy efficiency. According to the ‘one year on’ report for the London Environment Strategy, the current pipeline of potential investments for the £500 million of the Mayor’s Energy Efficiency Fund add up to about £193 million. Is this in line with expectations, and do you anticipate all the projects in that pipeline to go through to completion?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): My understanding is yes, it is on track if all that pipeline comes to fruition, but inevitably with projects there are occasional things that happen so that things do not go ahead, or some things go faster than others. We are about, I think, halfway through, and we have done very well in terms of the allocation and commitment of funding. The fund manager has done a great job in leveraging more money in over the amount of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) money that we secured, match-funded by the GLA, which is great. That £500 million of financing is nowhere near enough for what we need in London to implement energy efficiency and renewables projects but it is a really good showcase for what can be done, using that as a springboard for some of the other work that we want to do on growing the Green Finance workstream in London.
Do you have any specifics? We have funded two projects that are already out there, I think, [including Epsom and] St Helier [NHS Trust].
Aram Wood (Assistant Director of Environment, Greater London Authority): £30 million has been committed to date and about half of the overall budget is accounted for in terms of the pipeline, but of course in development pipelines it would be natural for some of that to fall away through the process. We are 18 months in, and I see no reason why we cannot get close to or spend everything in the fund.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Are you developing more programmes in order to have enough?
Aram Wood (Assistant Director of Environment, Greater London Authority): Absolutely, yes.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Then, in terms of the Mayor’s Green Finance workstream, what progress has been made through that, in addition to the Mayor’s Energy Efficiency Fund, on identifying independent finance schemes to roll out in terms of the Mayor’s zero carbon ambitions?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): This was a key part of the Environment Strategy because, as was said, the amount of financing that we need in London to become zero-carbon is huge Page 19 and we cannot fund it alone through the GLA. We need private sector finance to be flowing. Whilst we were able to leverage a bit of money through establishing the Mayor’s Energy Efficiency Fund, we need much more.
There are a couple of things we have done. One is to ask the London Sustainable Development Commission to examine this and they reported a couple of weeks ago, making a number of recommendations on how we can use public sector funding to drive public sector investment and how that might be taken forward, and the Mayor is looking at how we might do that. Part of the Green New Deal funding is about how we might explore where next with that. We have done quite a lot of mapping. We have done our work, which is the direct funding that we have provided through the GLA. We have been working to lobby Government to make the case for our fair share of funding. We talked earlier about accessing the funding for London that we have been barred from. It is really making the case why this would help the UK.
The order of finance that is needed to support us is really going to be down to the Government and private sector working with us to do that. The next steps, I think, through the Green New Deal funding, are to examine those mechanisms. We have been talking to the City of London Corporation, for example. We have been talking to boroughs about their offset funding, using every lever we can to make sure that any finance that is out there is being leveraged and pulled into supporting our work.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you. The Mayor’s Environment Strategy suggests that about 15% of London’s energy could be met by decentralised energy schemes. What percentage of supply is being contributed currently by the Mayor’s current decentralised energy programmes?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I am not sure I know that in percentages, unless either of you do.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): What about in terms of, “a little, a bit, a lot”?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Well, we have been working on a number of projects to move our work on decentralised energy. Work, for example, on district heating networks, the solar projects that we have been developing in London as part of the Solar Action Plan, which has taken a number of steps forward.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Perhaps is there anything that is being done specifically to help realise the potential of decentralised energy to help meet our energy requirements?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I will write to you with the number. Sorry, I just cannot find it in my papers. On the decentralised energy programme, for example, we have been working on a number of projects to highlight the need to develop heat networks. We have a number of areas. One is the London Plan. We have set policy requiring new development to make sure that they have the infrastructure to connect up to heat networks or to provide heat network infrastructure up to their boundaries so that we can connect up across London. We have our own project that is partly funded through European Union (EU) funding, the Decentralised Energy Enabling Project, which has been working with a series of projects in the pipeline, working with boroughs and so on --
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Is that EU funding presumably coming to an end?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is, but we have secured enough to be going on with for the next few years and then Government have said that they will replace EU funding. I think in yesterday’s Budget they talked about a confirmation on heat network funding and support, which we Page 20 would hope that we would then get access to, which would then support the work that we have been doing in London. We have done a lot of mapping of where heat networks need to be. We have been working with some of our energy-from-waste companies to make sure that we start to capture the heat offtake. We have been supporting projects like Bunhill. We opened phase 2 the other day with the London Borough of Islington. That is capturing waste heat from the Tube, which is going to heat homes and businesses in the area but also is going to be able to be used to cool the Tube. Projects like that, a whole number of projects around decentralised energy.
We have been working on solar, for example, mapping the potential for solar across London. We have been doing a reverse auction for people who want to put solar panels on their roofs, and this has been a huge success. We have run three now and over 800 units are in. The first auction saw a 35% reduction in the installation price. Slightly lower reductions later, in the order of 20%, but it shows the appetite for people who want to implement renewable energy. Then of course we have been working with some of the functional bodies to make sure that we understand the potential for renewables on their estate, as well as here at City Hall. We have been purchasing green energy as well, driving the potential for renewables across London.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): I hope you are also pushing TfL to do a bit better on their 0.01% of renewable energy, which is their current use of renewables.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We are pushing. Actually, I think Pete has some data.
Pete Daw (Interim Policy and Programme Manager for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, Greater London Authority): Yes. There are a number of things I will come back to you on, if that is OK, afterwards, but I was just going to focus on the new development in the London Plan. In 2018, for example, the policies of the Mayor have driven seven million in solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. That is 5.5 megawatts just from the planning policies in the Plan.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): It is about energy again. Sorry. It was just about the London Community Energy Fund. Obviously there have been three rounds of that now. That has been quite successful because it is focused on helping people over the line by offering assistance with feasibility and the things you need to do at the start, but obviously when the Mayor was first elected in 2016 the arrangements for supporting people through feed-in tariffs (FITs) were different and it has all become a lot more difficult. How successful do you think it has been so far over the four years, particularly given all these cuts from the Government, and what options have you assessed for either extending the London Community Energy Fund or replacing it with something new that does not just cover feasibilities?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The London Community Energy Fund has worked extremely well. As you pointed out, Léonie, we were approached by community energy groups when the Government took away the Urban Community Energy Fund, the national funding, saying, “Look, we really need help to make the business case to financers, investors. That is where we need the support”. At that point the FITs were around, so the business case was slightly easier. Over time we have seen over 40 projects now, I think, some fantastic projects with solar panels on schools, on general practitioner (GP) surgeries and so on, really great ones, and we just announced the last round of projects a few months ago.
We would be very keen, and I think this is another one of the criteria that we have identified as potential for the Green New Deal funding because it is such a local action that speaks volumes, signifies, shows and inspires people about the transition to a net zero world. It is something that people can see in their daily lives making a real difference. Page 21
I met with [The Rt Hon] Kwasi Kwarteng [MP, Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth] on Tuesday, when I raised the issue around the Urban Community Energy Fund, saying that it was really important that that was reinstated. Obviously, the Mayor had stepped in to make sure this kept going in London but really, we need this nationally because especially in urban centres, big renewables, offshore wind and even onshore wind are not suitable. One of the things that we are able to do through the planning system, through the reverse auctions and so on, or through community energy projects, is small-scale solar. We need small-scale solar as well as the larger renewables to combine to make us have a chance of getting to that net zero target. The Budget I do not think came up with anything on community energy. We will keep pressing and obviously we will bear that in mind as we go into the next administration as to how we might support the community energy sector.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): OK, but that sounds promising that it might be considered for being part of the Green New Deal because I think it is very popular. At this point, maybe I should do a declaration of interest. I am involved but I get nothing pecuniary from CREW, Community Renewable Energy Wandsworth, who have been working obviously in this area fairly extensively, including working with the GLA. Maybe I should do that as an additional declaration.
Nicky Gavron AM: So many of the projects that we are talking about and that we are going to talk about need investment. We keep talking about investment. I was very recently at something that you were speaking at too, which was the London Sustainable Development Commission launching a report on how we could move towards a future financing facility for London so that we can unlock the investment that is there in the private sector, which you talked about, in order to fund confidently a pipeline of projects, so that we have confidence in developing that pipeline of projects because we know the investment is there. I just wondered, I think the GLA and yourself have been working very closely with the London Sustainable Development Commission and both of you are working very closely with the -- is it called the Green Investment --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Finance Institute.
Nicky Gavron AM: The Green Finance Institute that the City of London Corporation set up. Could you just tell us what progress there is on this?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): As I mentioned slightly earlier, the Commission has published its report with a number of recommendations. We are now reviewing that. We have had conversations with the Green Finance Institute on how we might take this forward along with a number of other actors in this area, private sector investors, banks, pension funds and so on. There is a mapping exercise that we need to pull together. Again, part of the features of the Green New Deal fund is how we might pull all these sources of financing together.
Some of this financing is going to be great for the big projects like the hospital retrofits and so on, but for small-scale solar and community solar, they are so small-scale that they just would not be things that the City of London Corporation investors over the river would get out of bed for, I guess. Part of the problem in financing projects is how you agglomerate the project to a sufficient scale that would then make them investable. What we might need to do is separate those out into the small-scale solar and the smaller projects. What the Community Energy Fund has done amazingly well is get crowdfunding and get people investing in them because they have such a good rate of return. We are looking at how we might look at financial models that support that, which are very different to the financial models that you need for investing in big renewables that will support London, offshore wind or solar farms outside London.
Page 22
Nicky Gavron AM: I understand that. I just thought it was important that the Committee was made aware of that work.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes, I know. It is a really important part about accelerating the pace of change and it is one that will probably feature as a big issue at the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Glasgow later this year [2020]. This is not an issue that London is facing alone. Everywhere is facing it, other cities, and it is a developed and developing world issue about how you get those finance flows moving fast.
Nicky Gavron AM: Thank you.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): You mentioned earlier the local planning authority offset funds. Apart from the slight anxiety about the potential for developers to avoid having to build new homes to the proper zero-carbon standard so we end up having to retrofit new homes in the future, leaving that anxiety about those funds aside, what kinds of projects are being supported through these local planning authority offset funds and at what sort of scale?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is quite a new initiative, the offset funding. Over the last few years we have been monitoring, surveying boroughs to see if they have set up the scheme to collect the funding. There is a time lag in between the development and the local authority collecting the payment, and then collecting enough funds to use it in a way that is strategic rather than piecemeal. We are really pleased that over time, certainly since I have been here, we have seen significant progress in boroughs and local planning authorities setting up the funds. We have 31 that are underway, either collecting already or that have the mechanism in place to collect. That is pretty much all of them. Over £50 million has been collected or secured for collection to date and that has been ringfenced for spending on carbon-savings projects in London.
While the expenditure is low at the moment - the report talked about £2.8 million being spent by seven local planning authorities, about 25% of the funds collected since October 2016 - there are some very good reasons for this: they are waiting to collect enough money to fund some really big, large-scale projects, and, as I have mentioned, the time lag. The recommendation from the last report, which we published, I think, late last year [2019], was that really boroughs should not be holding these funds. This is not an ongoing income stream because as you pointed out, Caroline, what we want is the homes to be built at the higher zero-carbon level. The offset is only if you cannot do the final bit, and officers here and in the boroughs will be pushing developers to make sure that the amount of offset is limited. That should be the aim, which means over time we will have got those zero-carbon homes and we will not have that offset funding going further. That is certainly if the Mayor has his way.
We will be monitoring this again. We will be doing another survey shortly, which will be asking boroughs what they have done with the funding. To date the sorts of projects they are funding are things like solar panels on schools -- what else have they funded?
Aram Wood (Assistant Director of Environment, Greater London Authority): Social housing in their own estate.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes, and schools energy retrofit programmes as well. Some good projects starting out there. Again, this is something that we flagged with boroughs at the climate emergency workshop that we hosted. How might they use it to help deliver in their own boroughs? Also starting to think about if there is a way we might pool some of that money in order to Page 23 leverage that money to get an even bigger benefit, which goes back to the Green Finance workstream that we have been talking about, the London financing facility. The Sustainable Development Commission report talked about the pooling of carbon offset funds in order to leverage in even more funding. Lots of potential there.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Actually you kind of hope that the carbon offset fund --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Diminishes over time.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): -- diminishes over time, exactly, because people are doing the right job in the first place.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes. The zero carbon home standard, if it works right and well - it is doing in London and we are tightening it and ramping up all the time - is really getting what we want, really good zero-carbon homes coupled with the decarbonisation of the grid.
The worry is that the Government is consulting on a Future Homes Standard, which will mean that our standard is not allowed to ramp up, show the ambition that we want to show and keep pushing developers, who are delivering in London and are happy to deliver on that because they too share those aspirations of getting good homes that are not leaky, that reduce bills, that are pleasant to live in and so on. That is a big lobbying ask that we and a number of metro mayors have made jointly with Sadiq [Khan, Mayor of London] of Government, not to set standards that become a ceiling. They should be a floor and then allow us the freedom to innovate.
Tony Arbour AM: Right at the beginning, Deputy Mayor, you told us how wonderful the Mayor was in delivering all his targets and how wonderful we all were and so on. I would like to ask you a question on this one.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Do not make me a regret that.
Tony Arbour AM: I would like to ask you a question --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Too early.
Nicky Gavron AM: Serves you right.
Tony Arbour AM: -- which relates to the Mayor’s target of making London carbon neutral by 2030. My understanding is that that in part rests on replacing the more than 1.5 million gas boilers in London. I wonder whether or not you think it is realistic that you will be able to replace these 1.5 million gas boilers by 2030. I am sure you are expecting this question because I am asking it in the light of the memo which you allegedly received which told you that this was impossible.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The advice we were given was that it was difficult. This is a target. Replacing those boilers and changing to zero-carbon or low-carbon forms of heat will require the Government to help us do this. That is what the report also pointed out, that there are a number of issues that the Government is going to have to help us with, whether it is replacing gas boilers, decarbonising transport or decarbonising other parts of the energy system. We have set out in the 1.5C Plan what we are able to do with the powers that we have and those are the programmes that we have started. I have talked a little bit about the Retrofit Accelerator programmes that we have implemented. It is absolutely clear that in order to get to that 2030 target, we are going to need Government help, action and funding. Page 24
I think the point of setting that 2030 target is to show the leadership and ambition that is needed because of the crisis that we are facing. To wait until 2050 or to set a pathway to 2050 and hope that will get us where we need it, when it is absolutely clear that pretty much every day we are getting evidence from climate scientists and from others about the impacts that we are facing, means that we really should be showing the leadership. If we fail to meet the target because of lack of ambition, then future generations are not going to thank us. We have to show the ambition and the leadership now.
Tony Arbour AM: Do you know, that is all very weak spin because what is happening, and it happened with all the pledges which the Mayor made before the last election, was that effectively he was going to be able to do all of these things. When he has failed to do any of these things, he has alibied himself by saying, “I do not actually have the power to do this. I need the help of the Government”. It is a variation of the reason that so many people are being murdered in this city, it is because the police are not being properly funded by the Government, so it is not his fault, it is somebody else’s fault. Now we are hearing --
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): We are straying into other territory here.
Tony Arbour AM: No, it is part of a pattern, Madam Chair --
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): No, no, make your point and ask your question.
Tony Arbour AM: -- that his central pledge of making London carbon neutral by 2030, he knows he cannot do it on his own, but he is making the pledge that this is something that he wants to do. When we dig deeply into it - and actually, I am only dealing with it at skin-deep level by asking you about it - you say, “What he is really saying is he would like to do it by 2030, but he knows he cannot do it without the Government”. The truth of the matter is he can make any promise he likes and he can say, “The only reason that I am going to fail to achieve this is because the Government did not help me, Mr [Donald] Trump [President of the United States] did not help me, because a miracle did not occur”. Do you not think it would be far more honest, Deputy Mayor --
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Tony, can you get this to a question?
Tony Arbour AM: -- in your pledges on the environment - and I stick to this one about making London carbon neutral by 2030 - would it not be more honest if the pledge was, “I will make London carbon neutral only if I have the help of the Government”, rather than simply saying, and I have got the thing in front of me, “I will make London carbon neutral by 2030”? Would that not be the honest environmental strategy of this authority?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have made it absolutely clear in the Environment Strategy and in the 1.5C Plan, and in fact a number of other Strategies, that the Mayor has the highest ambition for London and Londoners. He has been really clear about where his powers lie and the source of emissions and where other people’s powers lie that are able to help. Where he has the powers, he set targets that he is able to meet, and he is meeting them. If you take air quality, for example, and I know we are going to talk about that later, this is exactly an area where we have set high ambition and delivered a significant impact.
I think the point is if you do not set the ambition then people will not try to meet it as much as we can do. If we are waiting for the Government to help us, as we have been on air quality, we would not have been able to deliver the fantastic reductions you are seeing on NOx, reducing the numbers of people that are exposed to Page 25 toxic air pollution every day, reducing the cost to the NHS, reducing the burden of disease on the NHS and to people. You really do underestimate the power of leadership which people are crying out for.
Tony Arbour AM: No, the Mayor overestimates his power and he portrays to Londoners that it is in his gift.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Tony, this is --
Tony Arbour AM: It is not in his gift and he does not make that promise.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Tony, Tony, I am sorry, you are now just giving opinions rather than asking --
Tony Arbour AM: The Deputy Mayor has done exactly the same when she is going on about the health system.
Nicky Gavron AM: Every single major target that we put forward, we are within spheres of government, national Government, local government. We cannot deliver very much on our own, but you set ambitious targets and then you work with the other players, all the stakeholders, but particularly the other spheres of government to achieve it. I think you are being grossly unfair.
Tony Arbour AM: I am not being unfair. I am portraying the way it is.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Committee, can I please ask you all to be quiet now? I would just like to --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Excuse me, I was not saying anything.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): No, no, I know you were not, Jennette. I did not include you in that, I am so sorry. Can we please move on? I would just like to say I am very glad that the Mayor is now talking about 2030 because there was a while after we asked him to declare a climate emergency when he was not talking about 2030, so seeing that increased ambition is extremely welcome. I would like us to move on to some questions which will be asked by Assembly Member Cooper on building resilience in the capital.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Chair, but just before I do, I would just like to mention that when I first was elected in May 2016, I said to the Scrutiny Team that I would like to do something through the Environment Committee, because I had just become the Chair of the Committee at that point, on single-use plastic water bottles. I was laughed at by the Scrutiny Team and eventually they said, “You can have one meeting in February 2017”, almost a whole year later. We launched a report in April 2017 but in the lead-up to that report, Assembly Member Arbour pooh-poohed the discussion and said, “Should we not be talking about plastic milk bottles and a number of other items?” It was a very targeted report that only talked about single-use plastic water bottles. As a result of that report, the Mayor then decided that he was going to move on the issue of single-use plastic and the Environment and Energy Team has had regular discussions with --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: This is not electioneering?
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): No, it is not electioneering. This is the development of policy and stepping up. I think some of the pressure then came from the team here in the building on [The Rt Hon] Michael Gove [MP], who was the Secretary of State for Environment, who then started talking. Now, of course it was massively assisted by the publicity that came from the Blue Planet programme, which then led the Mayor to massively increase the budget again, but we started from something that people laughed at in 2016/17 and
Page 26 now I think the plague of single-use plastic and what it has done to the whole of the world is very well-known to everybody. I think on this particular issue, Tony, you are wrong.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Assembly Member Cooper, I thought you were making a broad policy point and not making a point with political implications. Could you stick to policy, please, and move on to your questions?
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): There are issues where we start and we can move forward, and sometimes it looks as though you cannot and you have to persuade everyone else to follow.
I want to talk about something completely different though. Actually, it came up last night at People’s Question Time. The Road Runoff Water Quality Study, which was published in December at the end of last year [2019], noted that only one of London’s 41 river ways is classified as good. Three are bad and five are poor, which is not a very good state of affairs. How is the Mayor and how is your team using the data from this study to meet the Environment Strategy objective to improve the water quality of all of London’s rivers?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you, Léonie. That was the first time anybody has ever really looked at road runoff. It is a pioneering study in the UK. I do not think anybody else has done it globally. We worked very closely with Thames21, the rivers charity, and the Environment Agency on this, so I wanted to just thank them for their work. That project highlighted something that was not known, which was how much road runoff really can pollute water sources. We looked at outer London because most of the road runoff in central London will go into the drains and the sewers, so outer London is where it affects watercourses.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Yes, I think we had a guess that it might be of this nature, because certainly I can remember, I think it was Elliot [Treharne, Head of Air Quality, GLA] and yourself came and talked about this study before it had been completed. It was a concern, but at that point no one had quantified it.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is right. It has been quantified and we know where the high-level locations are. They are mostly on the major roads, the Highways Agency roads and some of the big TfL-owned roads as well.
To your question, “What next?”, having got the broad locations, what we are now doing as a phase 2 project, which is currently underway and reporting later this spring, is devising a sort of support tool for decision-makers - the Highways Agency, TfL, local authorities - where these roads run through, which would then identify the best sort of treatment methods for the road runoff and what type of sustainable urban drainage mechanism or scheme might help, whether it is wetlands or it is some other intervention that might help reduce that road runoff into river courses. Then we will be talking to those authorities, those highway authorities, to take that forward and also working with other cities and other highways authorities to take this forward as well.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): I have two questions that I would like to follow up from that. One is: do we have any knowledge about vegetation or insulations that you might include in sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) that is particularly effective at cleaning the water that might go through of the toxins that have been established? That is a sort of mitigation thing.
The second one is about the introduction of the London-wide Low Emission Zone (LEZ) for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). I am sure that not all of the material that is getting into the runoff comes from HGVs, but I Page 27 would have thought the introduction of the LEZ for the HGVs might have some impact, so again, an overall reduction. I just wondered if you could comment on both of those points.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): On the latter point, a part of the road runoff comes from tyre and brake wear. Whilst the LEZ will tighten up the standard from air quality, it is really around the driving behaviour and the composition of the tyres that governs the abrasion of the tyres and then the particles that get mixed up with the dust, the oil and so on. It is less of a LEZ issue, but I think it is definitely an issue for tyre manufacturers. I know there has been a challenge about whether tyre manufacturers start thinking about the composition of their tyres so that it does abrade so easily, and how do we talk to drivers of HGVs to drive less harshly? Then as you start to move to more hydrogen --
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): This is another example of an extended producer responsibility, is it not, really?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Indeed, yes.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Just as we would like the producers of plastic, for example - which I have hardly mentioned so far today - to take some extended producer responsibility for the kind of plastics that they are producing. Again, the tyre manufacturers, if they take proper extended producer responsibility for the tyres that they are producing, that would also really mitigate this.
Do you think 20-mile-per-hour zones would have more impact than the LEZ then? That impacts on driver behaviour quite massively.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It does. Obviously a 20-mile-per-hour zone on some of the arterial roads would not necessarily work, but your point about the ownership of the tyre manufacturers I think is key. We know obviously that contributes to particulate matter (PM) 2.5, which is an air quality problem that we also need to deal with. For those manufacturers to take responsibility would help on a number of other areas.
Do we know the types of vegetation and the types of schemes that would really help alleviate runoff? We probably know a little bit, but Andrew can help.
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager for Green Infrastructure, Greater London Authority): I can see reed beds have been traditionally used as a vegetation that is a tried and tested means of helping with improving water quality. Obviously, there is the issue about where you can create reed beds and the size of those sorts of things, but from my knowledge, they can work. We have been involved in some of the greening schemes in terms of where we have been de-culverting rivers. They have been used where there have been misconnection sorts of things that are difficult to solve, using reed beds as a means of filtering that water when those rivers become open again.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): I went to visit Firs Farm up in Enfield and that seemed to be a very good scheme that was showing the efficacy of the reed beds along what had previously been quite a dirty watercourse. The installation was as a result of Environment Agency intervention because there had been some misconnections and some flooding there. It sounds like we might end up with some very nice roadsides.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I hope so, and just to comment that the boroughs are very keen on this. We have run a couple of workshops there, which have been really well-attended by borough highways officers, who are very keen on understanding what the problem is and Page 28 how the design of road schemes or retrofitting road schemes might be able to help. Obviously we, through the Greener City Fund, have made some funding available to support greening the grey, which has been more community space projects, but we are looking to see how those highway authorities can also take this on by integrating these approaches into the design of road schemes going forward.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): That brings me on to the next area, which flows from London’s Sustainable Drainage Action Plan, which suggests that funding pressures do make it particularly difficult to fund these large-scale drainage improvements. You have just mentioned the Green New Deal as a possible source of finance. The Mayor’s Green Finance workstream is exploring funding options beyond the Green New Deal for large-scale sustainable drainage retrofit? I know that the Environment Agency, as I just mentioned, will fund them from time to time.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes, and I think both the Environment Agency and some of the water companies are going to be huge sources of support in this area. Some of them have been doing some very good work but I think, as ever, once you understand the problem then it is about, “How can you help on this?”
We talked about the road runoff project. It was a project through the Water Advisory Group, which I chair, which brings together a number of the water companies that operate in London as well as the regulator, as well as Environment Agency, Thames21 and the Consumer Council of Water. They all come together. This was a key project. We are due to have a Water Advisory Group, I think next week, which we will be taking this study back to. “Here it is. We have done the study to understand what the problem is, and we now know what the problem is”. We will have a finer-grained understanding of that through the next phase of it, but really it is about, “How are you helping to support the implementation of this?” That is the next step, getting some of those bigger organisations who have the wherewithal to help support this approach to step up.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): One thing that exacerbates the level of runoff is the rather ubiquitous practice of paving over of people’s driveways. People are still doing this in areas of high flood risk. How is the GLA engaging with the boroughs to ensure that they are aware of this and are they using any powers as yet to try and prevent it? I think it is deplorable and should be banned, personally, but that is just a personal thing.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is a borough responsibility. I do not know so much about it. I do not know whether anybody else has anything specific to say. Dragging it back to previous roles, it is partly about getting people to understand the importance of paving over your front garden. It is not going to help road runoff, it is not going to help flash flooding; it is going to exacerbate it, essentially. Often you need permission to cross over and people are not aware of that. These are things that I think the boroughs are aware of. I know London Councils has talked to local authorities about how they might help with that, but we are talking about climate emergencies and people are getting to understand that by greening the grey it will help reduce that surface water flooding, it will help biodiversity and just the general visual appeal of an area.
Pete Daw (Interim Policy and Programme Manager for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation, Greater London Authority): Just to add to that, we talked about training and the toolkits. We have also been working with Groundwork on producing guidance on de-paving and funding schemes locally, community schemes. I think one positive from the Budget announcement yesterday was £5.2 billion for flood defences. It would be interesting to explore how we can capture some of that money for SUDS in urban areas.
Nicky Gavron AM: The Assembly has been talking about this and there have been many conversations over the last 20 years, the paving over of front gardens. It is perfectly possible to have permeable surfaces; it is Page 29 perfectly possible to put gravel down or to put something between the blocks. Is there not something now in the London Plan about the need for permeable surfaces, not just in front gardens, but around all developments? Surely there is.
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager for Green Infrastructure, Greater London Authority): To take out your front garden, if you propose to put a hard surface in, you require planning permission. The permitted development rights to pave over your front garden has been in place for quite a while. Unless you put some permeable surfacing in there, you lose your permitted development rights, so therefore you have to go to the borough and get planning permission if you do not want to put permeable surfacing down.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): But the problem presumably is enforcement.
Nicky Gavron AM: It would better to say everyone should have planning permission and then they can stipulate, yes, if it is permeable surfaces.
The other thing I wanted to say that did come up recently in something, just as a side conversation, but on TfL’s roads and its pavements now, why are we not putting down permeable surfaces, especially on pavements? I am not quite sure what I should say about roads. Yesterday we heard £28 billion is going to be spent on tarmac throughout the country and only £1 billion on clean vehicles. I just do wonder why we cannot have permeable tarmac. We know we have the materials. We could do it. Are we not stipulating? We are working with TfL now. At the very least they can show the way and then we can work with boroughs.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I would have to take that back to TfL.
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager for Green Infrastructure, Greater London Authority): I think we have to take that back. Obviously it is when you are doing some practical action to resurface your pavements, but I do know, for example, I have been to Barnet and seen some of the work they have been doing in terms of putting permeable surfacing around street trees and using that as an opportunity when they are either replacing or doing some tree maintenance to put in permeable paving on pavements.
Nicky Gavron AM: Like everything, it is bound to be a bit more complex than I am suggesting, because I am sure there are utilities underneath, there will be things underneath, but it seems to me that we could deal with a lot of the runoff issues and the flash flooding if we had much more stipulation about permeable surfaces.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Do you want to continue?
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): As well as vegetation so that the runoff flows through --
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes, of course, along with all of the other things.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): -- and it actually improves once it comes through. I just wanted to ask you a bit about some of the maps and tools that you have been publishing to help Londoners understand how green our city is and also that are available for use by policy-makers. Do you keep a record of how many people have been accessing the tools and how do you think you are going to develop them into the future? If you do not have that information to hand, I am very happy for you to send that afterwards.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I know there are web-based tools so I presume there is a way of counting the number of hits on the website, if we can write to you about that. In Page 30 terms of development of the tools, we are always keeping these things under review. Andrew can talk a little bit more about the range of tools that we have, which have really helped us understand in much more granular detail, for example, canopy cover and where our green spaces are, and overlaying that and cross-referencing it with the air pollution hotspots. Whilst the Mayor has made available Green City funding, £30 million, that is obviously not going to be enough to deal with everything we want to do in London, so it is using those mapping tools to target areas that really need help. When we invite applications for the various Green City funding streams, we use those mapping tools to help us understand how we might prioritise the funding applications we get, because we always get more than we have money for.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): All right, so making sure they get targeted to the right place?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes, and I do not know whether there is new mapping that we are developing.
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager for Green Infrastructure, Greater London Authority): Just in terms of update, obviously it is citywide data, so it is about when there is new citywide data coming onstream. For example, the Environment Agency have produced data on nature-based solutions to flood risk. That is a new dataset we would try and integrate into the focus map, which I think is the primary tool you are talking about in terms of that. We keep a constant track of when new citywide data is coming on board, whether it is appropriate for us to update the thing and whether there is a dataset that we can incorporate into the system.
In terms of how it is being used, Shirley indicated we ask grantees to review it and look at it and identify how their scheme may be addressing some of the challenges that we have identified in it. We are also doing a series of workshops on the Urban Greening Factor (UGF) with boroughs and developers. They are proving quite popular. We are doing those with Urban Design London and again we will promote the focus map as a means to help when they are taking forward developments to look at the focus map as a means to inform them.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): That is very good to hear because the UGF came from my rapporteurship - or at least in part came from that - where I called for the Green Space Factor to be introduced, along with net biodiversity gain. It is good to hear that that is all going forward and being used, but it would be good to have the numbers of hits on the website because there might be something about advertising it further.
One thing I think that has been a really good way of advertising that London is a green city, which you mentioned in your opening remarks, Shirley, is the whole issue of London declaring itself to be a National Park City and then having events and programming to actually get people out into nature, which I am very passionate about. How do you think that is going to be developed to further increase engagement with Londoners? What else can be done?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): In terms of the National Park City --
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): A programme of activities. Do you feel that it has reached all the other parts of London that other programmes have not reached, she said, misquoting?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): No, but it has been a fantastic way of engaging Londoners. The festival that we had last year [2019] to celebrate being confirmed and designated as a National Park City was a wonderful way of understanding and getting all Londoners involved. What we were Page 31 particularly proud of is the reach that we had. It was not just the typical person who uses a park but people who would not necessarily go into a park or use a watercourse, to go out and try the river and understand what biodiversity was out there, go out into some of the fantastic open spaces that we have and finding new open spaces.
We are very keen to keep going on promoting the fantastic open spaces that we have in London and particularly those hidden gems as part of this year [2020], which is the year obviously of the climate change COP but also the year of the Convention on the Biological Diversity later this year [2020] in China. It really brings together the fact that we have a climate and an ecological emergency and that we need to be tackling both those together. The National Park City is a way of really engaging Londoners, inspiring Londoners and actually for them to inspire us in taking more and more action and faster action, as we have talked about, with the 2030 target.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): You have just brought together the National Park City and getting people into nature together with the climate emergency and COP. One of the things that has been much discussed, but does definitely appear in the London Environment Strategy that the Mayor committed to, is increasing tree cover by 10% from current levels by 2050, although it has been much discussed that there are other figures attached to this. Is London on track to reach the target of a 10% increase in tree cover by 2050 and if yes, how much air pollution and carbon will we be sequestering from London’s air due to the tree-planting programmes? I think 280,000 is the number that has been planted so far.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We planted over 280,000 trees to date in these last few years, more than the previous Mayor did in two years, as you have heard Sadiq [Khan, Mayor of London] say, so we are really proud of that. Talking about the National Park City --
Tony Arbour AM: It is 2 million.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): -- what he promised was a major tree-planting programme, which he has delivered.
Tony Arbour AM: “I will plant 2 million trees in London in my first term as Mayor”.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think what we are particularly proud of is getting Londoners involved. In talking about the climate emergency action, we have had every borough taking advantage of the tree-planting programmes that we have funded. We have all ages and people involved in tree-planting. It really shows that people want help to take action and really want to help beautify the city, help tackle climate change and improve our air quality.
In terms of the specific numbers that you are asking, about the impact of those, I think we will have to write back to you because I do not have them to hand.
Tony Arbour AM: Why should we believe in them?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): But we can do.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Obviously that is quite an important metric because just planting trees is lovely but they are also part of the piece in terms of improving nature, and also improving air quality and mitigating climate impacts are very important to us as well.
Page 32
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes, and the potential for storing carbon is also valuable.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Although there is some dispute over what precisely the target was for the planting of trees, given that the Mayor did set a target for the planting of trees or at least an increase in canopy cover, why has the Mayor not set targets for achieving green roof and green wall coverage in London - because those clearly feature in the London Plan - and what percentages of roofs are currently green in London? Do we know? I am happy to also include brown roofs in that if they just happen to be brown but they have nature on them.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes. There was a report published earlier this year [2020] by Livingroofs, I think: 1.5 million square metres of green roofs in London. I think we have one of the biggest percentages in central London.
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager for Green Infrastructure, Greater London Authority): Central London has more green roofs now than many other global cities. Just as a fact from the work that was undertaken, there was a 40% increase between 2016 and 2017 in terms of the area of green roofs. There are 1.5 million square metres of green roofs; 200 football pitches that is equivalent to. Then obviously the UGF is going to accelerate the increase in terms of areas of green roofs as well. I think it would be quite difficult to place an area target on the area of green roofs you are expecting to do, given it is primarily driven by the scale of development and how that is going.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): I accept the point that you are making, except that the Mayor has a huge budget for housing and a big target in the London Plan for the number of housing units that are going to be produced, and nobody is expecting the Deputy Mayor for Housing to say, “I do not really have a target for the number of units that we are going to produce because we are not directly producing them”. I am not sure I entirely accept your argument that we could not have some sort of aim. There is no metric, so we cannot measure success or “failure” on this, because we are not setting any kind of level that we are expecting. We must know how many developments are likely to take place. There have to be parameters. “Let us say things go very intensively, there will be this level of development, or it goes very slowly, it will be that level”. If people are retrofitting buildings you must have an up and down parameter, so there must be some way of giving us a sort of a minimum and a maximum likelihood for the amount of green roofs and green walls. Otherwise, what is the point of having the UGF?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): As Andrew has said, I do not think you can do that. It all depends on economics, it depends on whether developers are ready to bring forward projects and whether the boroughs are given planning permission. These all take time, so I think it is very difficult, as Andrew said, to set the target, but the UGF then says when you do get the development, there is a benchmark which we then hold developers to account to maximise the amount of green infrastructure that goes into those streams. On the basis of that going through, then we are able to report back on how well we are doing and if they are meeting that benchmark, which is I think the best we can do at the moment.
Going back to leadership and setting the agenda, the point that the Mayor has made, and that the Planning Teams here and the boroughs now are having to take into account in the new London Plan, is that the highest ambition is for maximising the greening of infrastructure, incorporating it into housing development, as this Committee’s report has talked about, and bringing it into daily lives as far as possible. We talked about greening the grey. It is that sort of ambition that we want to see and that is what the Mayor is helping to support.
Page 33
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Sitting alongside that, we have been told throughout the London Plan process that a couple of pieces of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) would be emerging. I was told repeatedly, for example, about the All London Green Grid (ALGG), which I see as an important tool in making sure that we are greening the grey. When is that due to be published?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think we said at the last Committee [meeting] that it was when the London Plan was formally signed off, adopted and so on. We are still waiting for Government to indicate whether it has signed off the new London Plan, but the Mayor has committed to producing that SPG and we will do it as soon as we are able to.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): As soon as Robert Jenrick [MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government] gets his act together and does not ask for another extension, you are saying that the ALGG is going to come out at that point?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It will not come out at that point because I think it is in development, but it will come out soon after.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Very soon after?
Andrew Jones (Policy and Programme Manager for Green Infrastructure, Greater London Authority): SPGs are a statutory document so they have to go through a statutory consultation period and obviously there are a number of SPGs that are being committed to. They cannot all come out at once, so it has to be considered where it is in terms of the package of SPGs that go with that. But we have done some preliminary work on it and we need soft consultation on it, I think, that we would like to do that as soon as possible, so it is certainly moving forward.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): We need to keep the pace up.
Nicky Gavron AM: I wanted to just go back to the National Park City because when you talked about it, you linked the climate emergency and the ecological emergency. Last week the Assembly, at the Plenary, came up with a motion which was unanimously agreed across all the parties about the Green Belt, which is 20% or 22% of London’s green space. Part of its ask was that the Mayor would work across all the teams, regeneration, food, as well as the environment and so on, but also across TfL in ways that could enhance the Green Belt.
I know that work is already going on with that, but it would be very good if National Park City was able to embrace the Green Belt as part of it because millions of Londoners live very close to the Green Belt, and millions more could enjoy it if we worked with all our teams and maybe marketed it more, if TfL helped with marketing it and so on, taking people out there. It was just a point to say it would be great if in the future National Park City embraced the Green Belt too.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think it already does. We absolutely see it as critical to London’s green spaces and to Londoners. We have been working on a number of programmes on how we might do more in the Green Belt, which hopefully will come to fruition shortly, and we are looking to see what more we could do.
Nicky Gavron AM: Brilliant.
Page 34
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): My final point is about the London Green Spaces Commission, which has now had all six of its planned or expected meetings. When will we be able to see any initial findings from the piece of work that they have been undertaking?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The team are working very hard on finalising the report. I think the issue is whether we are able to publish it before the pre-election period because we are pretty down to the wire, but the Commission - again, paying tribute to their work - their unpaid commissioners have put a lot of effort in. They have gone around to boroughs, had a number of workshops and seminars and conversations, taken evidence and come together with a great report with some good recommendations, which unfortunately I cannot share just yet, but be absolutely sure that it is a big part of our approach of making London greener and supporting the boroughs in finding new business models and ways of supporting our parks and open spaces.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): As you know, we have just over a week before it is going to have to wait until after 7 May [2020].
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I know.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Thank you very much for that update on where we are with that and I look forward to seeing the report.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Great, thank you. We are now going to take a very, very brief break before the next people come and join the panel, so I would just like to thank Andrew [Jones] and Peter [Daw] for your contributions. We will take a break now, but literally just for a couple of minutes.
[Adjournment]
Welcome back to this meeting of the London Assembly Environment Committee. Can I welcome two extra guests? We have Elliot Treharne, who is Head of Air Quality, and Andrew Dunwoody, who is Policy and Programmes Manager for Waste and the Green Economy.
Nicky Gavron AM: This is for the Deputy Mayor, Shirley. Just to kick off, you have set what I think is a pretty reasonable target of 50% of household waste - this whole section is about waste - to be the recycling rate by 2025, I think. Am I right, 50%?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes.
Nicky Gavron AM: In view of the fact that growth is looking pretty slow, what is going to happen? How are you doing? Are you going to meet that?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think so. We have been working with the boroughs to make sure, through the recycling plans, that we maximise the amount of recycling that they are able to do. Our performance in London is the worst in the country and although the rate is poor, we have seen a very slight increase, very small, so nothing to be proud about, but I guess it is not declining, which is something to be glad about. The work that we have been doing through the boroughs, we have been pressing ambition with them and trying to get them to do different things.
Nicky Gavron AM: We are going to come on to talk about the work with the boroughs in a moment, so the short answer is you think you can do it? Page 35
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think we can do it again. Tony [Arbour AM] is not going to like this, but we do need the Government to help. Just to be absolutely clear, the Mayor does not run waste management or recycling services in London, it is the local authorities, so the role we have is to make sure that they take the utmost ambition. We work with the local authorities through the London Waste Recycling Board (LWRB), we have best practice, we use the powers that the Mayor does have - which is the power of direction to be used in extremis, but it is quite a weak power - to get boroughs to do more. Each of them are locked into contracts, so we have been working to understand --
Nicky Gavron AM: I am going to ask about that in minute. You need more help from Government?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have said, and so have the local authorities said, that in order to do more on recycling we need between £100 million and £300 million of funding for infrastructure to help get a standardised service across London and on separate food waste collection. We have asked for the funding for the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme to be devolved to London. Most of that money does not come to us, which would help partly fund that infrastructure. Ideally, we would like some changes and we have seen some good progress on some of the consultations that have come out on extended producer responsibility, plastic packaging and so on. They have actually taken on some of the Mayor’s policies, for example, saying that food waste, anaerobic digestion, both those areas are things that local authorities should be moving forwards on. We would like that to come in earlier than the Government is talking about, so those are good things.
On food waste, it is 2023. We have said, “You should be bringing it in as soon as you are able to get through the contract changes” and a number of boroughs have contracts, so they can change.
Nicky Gavron AM: What you are saying is that there is more that the Government could do. What are they going to do to help food waste reduction?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): They are mandating that all boroughs collect food waste separately.
Nicky Gavron AM: I see, but not until 2022?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Not until 2023.
Nicky Gavron AM: Sorry, 2023. What I just want to say is that I am very struck, because we were in Wandsworth last night and I looked up what Wandsworth was doing in terms of recycling. Wandsworth had a rate of 28% recycling in 2007. It is now at 22% and it was higher than that, a little bit higher, and it has been going down ever since the Belvedere incinerator opened and so has the whole of Western Riverside, which is four boroughs, I think, maybe five. They are all less. I am just wondering, if you move sideways to Sutton, Merton, Croydon and Kingston, you see that Kingston is at about 50%. The lowest of them, Merton, I think is at 39%. That was last year [2019]. They are all so much higher. Why are they higher? Because they are not comingling - one of the reasons - they are source separating. It is a combination of incineration and comingling. What can the Mayor do? I know you have got a moratorium on any further incineration capacity, but what about comingling? What can you do about that and encouraging the example of the South London Partnership, which is those four boroughs?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The policy asks for separate food waste collection because that helps take out the contamination and it makes the recyclers that are left much Page 36 higher quality and therefore more able to be recycled. The food waste can then go to anaerobic digestion, which counts against our recycling targets and is just much better all round. But ideally, I think there is a problem about the recycling rates changing, because as we move to a more circular economy approach, it should eventually, over time, reduce, the recycling rates will change. I think that would be a great problem to have. We are a long way off that for now.
Nicky Gavron AM: A long way off?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The circular economy really kicking in, I think. We are starting on that, we are doing some great work through the LWRB. At the GLA we have got some policies in the London Plan that are trying to promote circular economy approaches and the whole waste reduction agenda we have been pushing Government to do, which it has taken on board, again which it has said that it is going to take forward. These are good starts, but for them to be implemented and to have an effect is going to take some time.
Nicky Gavron AM: Going back to the comingling which clearly, if you look across London, is partly responsible for the fact that we are just dragging along in terms of our recycling levels, how many contracts are coming up and when, roughly?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We only have a few more contracts coming up. Because they are quite long contracts, they only come up every X number of years, seven, ten, 15 years. Over the next few years we have probably got about four. We have cleared about 15 contracts since --
Nicky Gavron AM: Cleared about how many, sorry?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Fifteen since this administration, but they vary in size and type. You can get very, very small contracts, or very huge contracts around collection.
Nicky Gavron AM: But when the contracts come up it is an opportunity to look again at this whole concept of comingling, is it not?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is, but it is down to the Mayor’s powers are really only before the specification goes out, so we are able to ask the local authorities to make sure that the specification is in general conformity with the Mayor’s strategy, but they also have to take their own circumstances into account as well. Andrew, is there anything that you want to say about that?
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes, I find it difficult to see how we are going to make progress unless we go to source-separated waste, how we are going to reach the higher target.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Where we take advice from is from Waste and Resources Action Programme, which is the Government agency, which set out what the best practice is. For some local authorities it is depending on where they are in their infrastructure, it is source separated, in others it is comingled because it is about what makes it easier to get the participation rate up from residents. In some areas, depending on space, if you are in a tower block or whatever, if you do not have the space to do source separated, then sometimes you can only go down the route of comingled and then that might reduce the amount that you recycle, but you would have to make that up in other ways.
Page 37
The other area that we want to work hard on is commercial waste because commercial waste is very much like the household waste in terms of paper and so on and increasingly, we want them to be starting to collect food waste. Ideally, we would get Government to mandate some form of collection and recycling of commercial waste as well, which would then help boost recycling rates across London.
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes. Am I right that your target of 50% --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Household, local authority collected waste, yes.
Nicky Gavron AM: -- of waste to be recycled by 2025 and 65% by --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Municipal by 2030.
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes. Is it municipal waste, i.e. it is not just household waste, it is trade waste as well?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is the 65%.
Nicky Gavron AM: That is the 65%. The 50% is pure household waste by 2025?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes. It is local authority collected waste, which is slightly different. It is a very complicated definition.
Nicky Gavron AM: But that includes trade waste, does it not?
Andrew Dunwoody (Policy and Programmes Manager, Waste and the Green Economy, Greater London Authority): It includes trade waste that the local authority collect, which is usually from small businesses or other organisations such as schools or other public institutions. Sometimes they do offer commercial services and that is usually to small business that do not have the buying power to get involved with a larger waste contract or other organisations such as schools and other institutions that require waste collection as well.
Nicky Gavron AM: All right. Can I just talk about the flats for a minute, because you talked about that? Have you had a pilot in flats?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have just completed it. We launched it a couple of weeks ago. It was a project looking at how you might increase the participation of the residents and how you might reduce contamination and how you might increase the recycling rates generally. By tracking how people behave they have monitored uptake in recycling rates, and it is very interesting.
Often it is about design. How you make sure there are places? Are they clean? Are they available? Are the facilities where people are moving so that rather than having to leave your house and go around the back of the block of flats, it is on your way to the Tube station? Simple design changes like that really have helped boost the recycling rates and the participation rates. It has been really helpful. Also, things like how you signal where the containers are, what you put into different bins, how big the bins are and so on. There has been quite a lot of research and evidence through that that has been really useful. We are using that as part of the recycling plan process and discussion with local authorities, pointing them to this advice and getting them to think about taking it up.
Page 38
Nicky Gavron AM: Interesting, yes. Just going back to the food waste and looking at flats, there are nine boroughs, are there not, that do not at the moment collect food waste?
Andrew Dunwoody (Policy and Programmes Manager, Waste and the Green Economy, Greater London Authority): Yes, that is correct.
Nicky Gavron AM: Yes, that is right. Very recently the Labour Group produced a report on food waste and it was authored by Léonie Cooper [AM]. In that it talked about the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste that could be collected from food waste. I have just been looking at Milan, which the whole city now is collecting food waste from every single household, and Milan is very dense and very flatted. I am just wondering if there are lessons to be learnt from Milan.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes, and researchers did go to Milan to look at what they are doing, but some of it was about desire lines and the signage and some of it is cultural, some of it is behaviour change, that people learn to put their recycling out in the right bin at the right time without contaminating it. That is a big part of a lot of things, the behaviour change issue. On recycling, it is about how you get people to understand what they are required to do, when they are required to do it.
I think it was the Peabody Estate where when they have a new tenant or resident going in, they get a pack with some information about your recycling service and what are you expected to do, partly as a sort of contract between the housing association and the tenant. It is sort of a social contract, in effect, about, “This is how a good neighbour behaves in dealing with the recycling”, and also talking about the environmental impacts and so on. They have some simple mechanisms, like bags to put your rubbish in as you are leaving the flat. There is a roll of bags that you can put your rubbish in so that if you forget to take something or it is there, then you can put it into the recycling bin.
Nicky Gavron AM: You have talked about anaerobic digestion, because another recommendation from this report was that of course the more food waste we collect the more renewable gas we can produce from anaerobic digestion. How much are you pushing for it? Because it is perfectly possible, particularly in those large schemes referred to the Mayor, to get small anaerobic digestion plants per development, so it is a very good way of people understanding what is happening to their waste or their food waste and seeing the connection between that and their power. Are you pushing for that?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We are definitely saying that local authorities should be looking at anaerobic digestion as the best practical -- what is it, best environmental option? I cannot remember but it is BPEO [best practicable environmental option]. I do not think it is in the London Plan to mandate that you should have a smaller anaerobic digester (AD) facilities within your development because it is back down to how the local authorities dispose of their waste, which is partly locked into some existing --
Nicky Gavron AM: We certainly tried to get it into the London Plan, but we did talk quite a lot about anaerobic digesters. I mean it is not that difficult to do. The Heygate Estate has done it, or they were considering doing it. What we need to find is examples of large estates because it should help local authorities, should it not?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I would take that back for Jules [Pipe CBE, Deputy Mayor for Planning, Regeneration and Skills] to see whether that is something we could do, but obviously it is not for the new London Plan, it would be for an iteration.
Page 39
Nicky Gavron AM: That is of course not to knock out large anaerobic digestion plants in other places.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is important because we do not have enough anaerobic digestion facilities.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Incredibly briefly, the report found that if we more successfully implemented anaerobic digestion, perhaps in the way that Nicky is just outlining, we could power 75,000 dwellings in London. Given the climate emergency, is this not something that we should be trying to push ahead with more vigorously? I do not think that anaerobic digestion has to be linked to what the local authority is necessarily doing, providing the landlord or the large developer or whoever is managing the scheme afterwards is prepared to do some good engagement. That is what they did in Milan to get people to change their behaviours. Would that be something that the Mayor’s Green New Deal Fund could fund, that kind of engagement to get people to separate their food waste and use anaerobic digestion more effectively?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): There are a lot of calls on that Green New Deal Fund already just out of this meeting so I would not want to commit that as being another option for it. But the work we are doing with boroughs, ourselves as the GLA and through LWARB, is talking about ways of getting people engaged and recycling better, contaminating less, so we get better recyclers. How do we get anaerobic digestion facilities really pushed out there? What we are able to do is through the food policy and the waste policy, which have talked about a separate collection of food waste that then enables the anaerobic digestion to be more economic. We know that is going to help with some of the bio-gas powering vehicles as well as homes, which we need to get to zero carbon.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): Sure. I just think that if we are doing more work on the heat networks we might as well do the work on transforming the gas networks.
Nicky Gavron AM: I want to come back now to the waste reduction and recycling targets that you are negotiating with boroughs. Could you just tell us a bit more about how you are getting on with that?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have had very good discussions with the local authorities. When we consulted on the Environment Strategy one of the options was that the Mayor sets targets for the individual local authorities and the other was that the local authorities would work with us to set their own targets, taking account of the makeup of the borough and their level of performance but also what, crucially, a modelled potential might be. We have worked very closely with the local authorities, challenging them to understand and to get them to do more. I am not able to tell you in detail where we have got to yet because we are signing off all the individual rates and recycling plans with the individual local authorities, which we are going to be doing over the next few weeks, but it is very encouraging.
Nicky Gavron AM: That 50%, it is not for each borough? That is across London, is it?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is across London.
Nicky Gavron AM: Let us take Wandsworth, which is the fifth worst in the country and has gone down because it is now sending it all to Belvedere, so clearly could do much better. How are you getting on with them?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I do not want to talk about individual boroughs because it would be unfair not to --
Page 40
Nicky Gavron AM: All right, but western riverside boroughs.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have not signed off the Wandsworth letter yet, so until we do -- but, as I have said, with all local authorities we have had very good discussions with them and the officers. Andrew [Jones] and his team, our consultants and LWARB have worked together to put the challenge out there to say, “We think you could do more. Why are you not reorganising your service? Could you do this better? Have you looked at those local authorities that have worked in partnership and configured their service in a different way?” That has helped to raise ambition.
That is within the confines of the Mayor’s powers. We are not able to direct a local authority to break a contract. They can review a contract and reissue specifications and so on at an appropriate time, but it is very clear that without our intervention we would not have got the sort of movement that we have. The consultation response on the Environment Strategy was very against setting top-down strategies. We have got into a very good place and we hope to be able to talk about it shortly.
Could individual boroughs do more? Yes, when and if they are given the powers and funding to do more. I talked before about the £100 million to £300 million that is needed in infrastructure for some boroughs to be able to do separate food waste collection, for example. That would be very important; that would speed up the ability for boroughs to reach those recycling rates that we need. Then on the other side we have the commercial food waste and other waste collection services that we also have to work on as well.
Nicky Gavron AM: But on the boroughs - I cannot remember - I think the last lot of figures were down for the year.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): They were 0.3% higher than last year, so it was not down but it was not a huge increase. It was not great but thank god it was not going down.
Nicky Gavron AM: But you are expecting all of them to do better next year?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): No, I cannot say that.
Nicky Gavron AM: It is clear that they can do, you see. I have looked at all the figures since incineration and since comingling and they are really not up. They have to catch up.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Some boroughs are doing very well. Some boroughs who have re-let their contracts and really thought about how they are going to do things, like a number of boroughs in southwest London you talked about, in Ealing, have seen big increases in recycling rates. The levels that we are agreeing in the reduction and recycling plans is what we think there is the potential to do. What the local authorities have to do is then put the service changes in to get that.
Will they deliver that in the next year? Probably unlikely. Some of them may do, but not all of them. But collectively we think in putting all these service changes in - separate food waste collection, doing more on flats recycling, which some of them do not do, doing kerbside collection, some of them do not collect glass and now will be collecting glass - those sorts of things, if they are put in, will raise the recycling rate by X% and that will be a great change compared to the performance that London has seen over the last few years. Can London do more? Yes, of course it can but --
Nicky Gavron AM: Of course it can, with all those other things.
Page 41
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): With all those other things.
Nicky Gavron AM: OK, I am reassured by what you are saying. I can see the way you are going. I just wondered about the power of direction. Have you used it at all?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have invoked the start of using it with Barnet, but that got them to the table for the discussion. I think we are in a good place with Barnet. The point is not to use the power of direction; the point is to get the boroughs to look at the Mayor’s Strategy and to be in general conformity with it. That is what we got to.
Nicky Gavron AM: But unless you do use it now and then --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Part of the process is that you have to consult to use it. Then you have to consult again, then you have to write, then you have to consult. It is a very complicated and protracted process, but just starting on that process has meant that Barnet came and had a conversation with us. We were able to agree a set of changes which is now being looked at. Getting them to the table was because of the threat of using the power of direction, but as the Mayor has said and as I have said, we do not want to be in that place, and I do not think boroughs do. Many boroughs do not. They are declaring climate emergencies and waste is such a big part of that approach. People want to do more on recycling, especially food waste, so more and more of those boroughs are now wanting to do more and are being much more progressive.
Nicky Gavron AM: Barnet, now the direction was about recycling or was it about the fact that they are charging for their --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Food waste.
Nicky Gavron AM: It was about food waste?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It was about food waste collection.
Nicky Gavron AM: But there are eight other boroughs that do not collect the food waste.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes.
Nicky Gavron AM: So why Barnet?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Because they had a food waste service --
Nicky Gavron AM: And they withdrew it? Just a final bit, are you negotiating with them to stop charging for green waste collection?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I do not know; we will have to write to you on that one.
Nicky Gavron AM: They have started charging.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes. Page 42
Nicky Gavron AM: I will leave you with that one.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Which Government has said they do not want local authorities to do.
Andrew Dunwoody (Policy and Programmes Manager for Waste and the Green Economy, Greater London Authority): The Government has remained fairly neutral on the prospect of charging for green waste. We are waiting to see if they take a stronger stance in either direction and whether that should really be brought in as a standard issue or not, to charge or not to charge.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Of course, thank you. I have some air quality questions. A couple of comments before that. Shirley, thank you very much for your kind words on the recognition of the work of myself and Nicky [Gavron AM], particularly Nicky, and Tony [Arbour AM] on this committee. It has been very interesting. Can I just return the compliment to you in terms of - and I spoke about her last night - I am sure Samantha [Heath, former Assembly Member] would be very pleased with the work that you have done. For me that is the benchmark, as you know.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Also, thank you for all you do with all those organisations that are out there in the same space with the same mission.
Before I ask some specific air quality questions, last night the Mayor questioned where the Government was in its preparedness for the 26th COP, which, for those listening, is the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is gathering the world together about climate change. He said that we were not as prepared from an organisational point of view as other home cities had been in previous COPs. Away from the Government preparedness, can you say a little bit about what the GLA is planning to do? There will be thousands of governmental presence there in Glasgow. Never mind the Government preparedness; what is the Mayor’s preparedness status to, if you like, go and bat for London at COP 26?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I should clarify first of all that cities do not have a place in the formal negotiating process --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: No, but they are going to be present.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): -- but they will be present. There are two areas that we are working on. One is through the C40, the International Cities Network, of which London was the founder. We have been working with the team over there to discuss a number of arrangements. I was on a call yesterday with the steering committee, which is chaired by the Mayor of Los Angeles now, Eric Garcetti, talking about the preparations and what days they are going to try to convene the cities to come together.
We have said that London will be part of that to showcase what we are trying to do and the great work of the team, but also London generally. We have some fantastic work that is being done by non-governmental organisations (NGO), businesses, our business climate leaders, as well as individuals. It is to really showcase the work of the city, not just the Government - the local authorities as well - on a range of things from transport divestment and so on, using that as a way of lobbying and arguing for greater ambition by Government, putting in place the funding streams and policy frameworks that would really enable London, and Page 43 other cities and places in the UK, to be able to step up and make their contribution in delivering on the UK’s nationally determined contribution (NDC), which would then help meet the Paris Agreement. We know that the UK cannot meet its NDC and its share of reduction without London. It is such a big footprint. We are big consumers and big producers of emissions from our transport and our buildings. We talked about energy efficiency and decarbonising of transport as a key way of doing that.
The other part is: what does London do? We have said we would like to make sure that we do something, like we did last year [2019], about bringing people together who are wanting to do more on climate, wanting to show and inspire each other. We did a couple of things last year [2019], the Climate Action Week and the National Parks City Festival. What we are doing at the moment is trying to think how we might take this forward and bring the climate and ecological emergency work together because they are so intertwined, those solutions.
We had an International Air Quality Conference here last year [2019], where we heard from the World Health Organisation (WHO); Dr Tedros [Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General] and Dr Maria Neira [Director, Public Health, Environment and Social Determinants of Health Department]. We said very clearly that air quality and climate change are inextricably linked. The health agenda is really a big part of that climate change agenda. It is the sort of thing that resonates with people and countries. Tackling climate change can be a bit arcane. What does it mean? But when you bring it down to it, it means people’s health, it means economic wellbeing, it means no stunting of your children’s lungs, those sorts of things. It means greening of our cities, more storage of carbon, the multifunctional use of green belts, those sorts of things. It really resonates with people. We are trying to do that.
We will be hosting some events, some convenings over the year. Plans are a bit awry obviously because of the coronavirus and the sort of uncertainty, but, rest assured, there will be something happening both in London and London will be participating in COP at Glasgow as part of the non-state actors’ events.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Thank you for that, because the Mayor was not able to set that out as clearly as you have just done. I do think it is important but, as you have said, it is how Londoners feel and how they can have confidence in what is being done in their name. That is so important.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is. Over 70% of Londoners support the climate emergency call. We had so many people taking part in our tree-planting events. Lots of letters that get written in to the Mayor, which the team respond to, are from school children wanting to know what more can we do. Are we doing more drinking water fountains, sorting out plastic, reducing our emissions, helping London to be more resilient? They are worried about flooding and so on. It is out there, and it is our duty to respond to that and help people take action when they are feeling a bit powerless.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Great. Let us just get a couple of air quality questions in. The Mayor’s aim is to have the best air quality of any major world city by 2050, going beyond the legal requirements, to protect human health and minimise inequalities. Who could argue with that? As at the end of 2019 the Mayor had issued eight high alerts. Now, we know that the system is up and running but we are a bit unclear to the extent to which Londoners are using them to reduce their exposure. How is the Mayor tracking the extent to which Londoners are using his alert services to reduce their exposure?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The alert services are a message out to schools and also now through the Resilience Forum to GPs and care homes. I do not know if you know exactly, but I guess we could track how many people have received the messages. We know certainly how many go out to them. Then it is for the local authority or the school or the care home to take the action, which is to let Page 44 their clientele know that there is an incident coming and then to manage their exposure, either by making sure they have medication or to take less exercise and so on. I do not know if you have any details.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): I guess the key thing to say about the alert system is how important it was that we started providing that information on a citywide basis in 2016. Following the first year of the scheme we did a review of it to try to see how we can improve it, how we can enhance and change some of the messaging to make sure that they resonated. One of the key things that we did was we appointed Kings College London, who have worked in this space for a very long time, as our duty forecaster. That has been a very important step. Then, as Shirley was saying, to make sure that we could ensure that the alerts were sent more widely, obviously we used the existing TfL infrastructure. We used their bus countdown signs, we used the entry boards at London Underground stations and we also used around 140 roadside dot-matrix signs. Because we used those, we know - and TfL has done some analysis on this - that reaches a very large proportion of Londoners as a result, so it is a very effective communication channel.
But we wanted, as Shirley was just explaining, to go beyond that; we wanted to make sure that we were providing targeted information with relevant health advice to some of the more vulnerable Londoners. So, working with Kings College London, we have done two things. We have direct messaging to the vast majority of schools in London on moderate, high or very high air pollution episodes. Then, with that, they get tailored advice for the school population, if there is anyone with specialist health requirements. Then in addition to that, using some of the Resilience Team that we have here at City Hall, we also then cascade messages to other locations like GP surgeries, and also to care homes.
The next stage, which is really important - and we are working with Global Action Plan in doing some of this work now - is to make sure that when that information reaches people like health professionals, they are using it in the most effective way possible to make sure that we are, as you were saying, ensuring that we are getting the right behavioural changes as a result of them receiving that information.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Can I just say I have seen -- because I needed to be mindful of the levels personally I have seen the bus stop stuff, but when I am sitting on the bus I always thought, “I would have liked that information yesterday because I am already out now”. I would just ask if you can consider forecasts. I do not know if you can forecast it in a better way and have a bit of talking stuff on buses. The alerts that I have seen, they flash, but then you are getting off, whereas if you could use the talking mechanism on the bus that might have got through. It is just feedback.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: You seem to be progressing with that work pretty well. Have you yet gone into emergency measures during high and very high pollution episodes? If you have, can you share a couple of what those measures are?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have not used emergency measures, so this would be the sorts of things that other cities might consider. They ban vehicles. I am not sure what else they do, ban wood-burning and things like that. The Mayor does not have powers to ban wood-burning, and on vehicle restrictions, that would need the agreement of all 33 boroughs as well.
What we are trying to do is, through the alerts, make sure that people are aware of the high pollution episodes, they are aware that it is coming and they can manage their exposure. But more important is to really take the systemic changes that we have been implementing: cleaning up our buses, cleaning up our taxis, the ULEZ, the proposed expansion and the tightening of the LEZ. All of these things have seen dramatic decreases in Page 45 pollution incidents and the pollution levels, the legal limits. We have a report that will be coming out shortly updating the six-month-on performance of the ULEZ in central London to let people know what the latest levels are of performance.
These are things that we are trying to focus on, because it is not enough for people just to be told, “The air quality is bad and sort yourself out”; we really need to be talking about how do you tackle the root cause. You will have seen the great figures that I talked about earlier. These are things that can have a very significant and immediate impact. These are not five years’ time, ten years’ time, “Let us wait for it”. We are already ten years behind where we should have been because of the delay the Government has had in implementing the air quality legal limits. We know what works and we are getting on and doing that, so I will be very happy to update you on the latest levels when we get the report out.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: There was also a commitment about the bus fleet. In answer to a question in Mayor’s Question Time, November 2019, we heard that 7,900 buses in the fleet were equivalent of Euro VI standards or better. That represented 85% of the total fleet. What percentage of the total fleet now is in that condition?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I think it is still about 85% - it is near enough 7,000 buses or something - but we are on track for the target, which was to make sure the whole fleet was compliant by the end of October 2020. That is going very well, and we are seeing significant reductions in emissions from buses because of that, and when that is complete, essentially London will be a Low Emission Bus Zone itself.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: The 9,000 buses are those buses you have? All new buses, of course, will be complying, so it is that total.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is the existing buses that we are retrofitting or replacing.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): The retrofit programme has been absolutely transformational. Obviously, some of the other work that we have published earlier this year [2020] has been looking at the number of hourly breaches that you had of the NO2 hourly legal limit, and there has been a 97% reduction in that. If you look at some of the Low Emission Bus Zones - and Léonie [Cooper AM] of course will know one of those, which was particularly important, Putney High Street - there has been an absolutely transformational change. The annual averages at Putney High Street, for example, they have reduced, in terms of NO2, by about 50%. It shows you what progress we have been able to make and how important it is that we have prioritised the cleaning up of the bus fleet. It is just the last bit of the bus fleet that now has to be done over the next few months, so to make sure that by end of October this year [2020] all buses will meet that Euro VI standard.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Then the sort of difficult bit, taxis and private hire. I say difficult because it is huge numbers. The Mayor was looking to reduce emissions in the taxi and private hire fleet by phasing out fossil fuels, looking to switching to zero-emission technologies. What is the update on that?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is a great update. When the introduction of the requirement came in, in January 2018, there were no zero-emission capable taxis on our streets and it was one of those things where you are thinking, “Is it really going to happen?” We now have over 3,200 on our streets at the moment. Some of those are the new Dynamo, the all-electric, fully electric.
Page 46
The bulk of them are the low-emission, the London Electric Vehicle Company (LEVC), the old taxi company vehicles, those lovely ones with the six-seaters and whatever, which is absolutely amazing.
Partly it is because drivers like them. They recognise that there are fuel savings, they are cleaner, and they are not having to sit in a box full of diesel, and so they are our best advocates. But it has also been helped by the fact that the Mayor has made available funding for the de-licensing of taxis, which has helped drive people taking the very old dirty polluting taxis out and either no longer driving them or, as new ones come in, they have to be zero-emission capable at least. That has gone really well. Coupled with that, as I mentioned earlier, is the electric vehicle rapid charging infrastructure, which has really helped drive the take-up of those taxis.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: I was in a cab the other night and he did say, “Pass a message on to the Mayor”, so I will pass it on through you. He wanted you to know that he was well off the Mayor. He said it was going to cost him money that he did not have because his taxi was so old, he was going to have to get a new one at £40,000. If they are so old, the drivers have to go and get into another mortgage, have they not?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The taxi age limit has taken into account the fact that they are very specialised vehicles and expensive vehicles and so on, but, as you pointed out, they are highly polluting, those old vehicles, and this is why the Mayor set up the de-licensing scheme to help them leave the fleet, and that --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: But that is age-related, is it not? It does not cover the very old ones, does it?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It does do, the very old. They should not be more than 15 or 16 years old.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): Yes, so there are differing amounts available through the de-licensing scheme, but there is an amount available for the very oldest taxis as well. Crucially, separately, there is also funding available through the taxi plug-in grant, which enables a taxi driver to get up to £7,500 off the cost of those new vehicles. It is also important to bear in mind that there is some interesting stuff happening in the taxi industry at the moment in terms of the number of drivers who are choosing to lease vehicles. LEVC has provided a number of products, has done a lot of individual work, and has provided support to taxi drivers looking to make the switch to help them do the calculations.
Shirley was talking about the cost savings, which are substantial, in terms of fuel usage. You can - in a very economic way - switch to a leased model that will enable some of these taxi drivers, who might have an older vehicle, to stay in the market if they so choose to do so. The package of financial support and other support from LEVC and others is very impressive and is part of the reason that you are seeing this huge throughput of new zero emissions capable taxis into the London taxi fleet.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The budget kept that support at the same level.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): For 2022/23.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: OK. We heard a bit of this through an exchange between the Mayor and Assembly Member Kurten. It may well be useful - and through my cab driver - to look to see how you can
Page 47 update that trade, because information is lost, is it not, by just throwing out the magazine it is in? How many charging points are there?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): There are over 232 charging points.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): There are 245.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Sorry, 245. They have jumped up.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): Yes, they have.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): They have just jumped up, 245 on our way to our target for 300 by the end of 2020, the end of this year.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): Of course, that is the rapids that are being delivered through TfL. If you look across the charging infrastructure as a whole, obviously you have additional rapids that have been delivered by the private sector, which takes us up to about 350 and probably to about 400 by the end of the year [2020]. In addition to that, you also have a range of other chargers that have been delivered, particularly the residential scheme, which has been supported through London Councils and with London boroughs through the Go Ultra Low City Scheme. If you take all of those together, there are around 5,000 charge points in London. That is around 25% of all the charge points in the UK, so it is a really significant achievement in terms of the rollout of charging infrastructure in the city.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Then I want to go on to NOx emissions, a quick question about that. Again, NOx emissions reduced by around one-third in the central London ULEZ in its first six months of operation. Is the scheme still on track to reduce emissions by the 45% expected in its first year?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We believe so. As I mentioned, we will be publishing a report shortly that will give you the latest data.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: OK. When you say “shortly”, it is not going to be in the purdah period, is it?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): No.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Because we would not want you to do that.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We would not want to do that either.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: No, then produce a report saying you had not met your goals.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): No, when I say “shortly” it means very, very shortly. We know you are on a deadline.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Not that you would do such a thing. We leave that to Government Departments, do we not? OK, when will we see the next tranche of emissions and concentration data associated with the ULEZ itself? Is that in this report that is coming?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is in the report.
Page 48
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Good. We look forward to that. To you, Shirley, and to Elliot [Treharne], were there any standout lessons you learnt from the rollout that you are now thinking that because of that, the compliance is going to be high or stay high?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is really interesting. We have had a lot of people come to talk to us about ULEZ, talking about how it went in and so on, and you actually forget how much work went into it. It is about people advocating for it. We have had the technical preparation, which is getting the right things, all the consultations, making sure that we told people that this was coming, consulted them and got people on side. We worked with the health NGOs as well as the green NGOs to make sure the case was made for it, so that people understood why it was being brought in and that it was about reducing health impacts. Also, we have done a lot of research around health inequalities and reducing the impacts that people do not realise, and really bringing that out - those are really important things - and giving people time.
The Mayor talked about this in his election campaign. We probably did more consultations on it, on a single piece of policy, than have ever been done before. There were about three consultations, so pre-consultations and statutory consultations. We gave people time. We brought in two scrappage schemes to provide people with support. We have done the lobbying of Government. Unfortunately, the Government has not listened on the scrappage scheme which - and we mentioned this before - are not just a London problem. This is a clean air problem for the country, and we believe a national vehicle scrappage scheme would be really helpful.
It was very disappointing that that was not picked up yesterday, although I believe there was some funding for other parts of the country. Again, Londoners missed out, so it is absolutely down to the Mayor making this a leadership point for himself and making sure that TfL knows -- near enough doubled the spending it has put on air quality. That has really driven the changes that we are seeing. It shows that you can have these really significant and immediate impacts if you just go for it, which is what the Mayor has done.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: I just want to go on to compliance. Can I just say about compliance - and Nicky [Gavron AM] touched on it earlier - it is great to be going along and working with people, but there has to be a point where you identify that there are roads and locations that have not stepped up? Indeed, you could argue they are putting those children and those people at greater risk. The disadvantage, if you like, for those people in that area is unacceptable because they are Londoners too, so why should they have to live in an area where there has been no action and six roads away there has been action? What specific plans does the Mayor have for roads that will continue to breach the legal limits for not following expansion of the ULEZ and changes to the London-wide LEZ?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): There will be some roads, and what the Mayor has made available is funding through the Local Implementation Plan process to help look at those. Where there are roads then, obviously, they will be taking action, so at the moment we are just trying to evaluate where those hotspots are.
I should point out that - we are talking about NOx, but I do not know if you are going to come on to talk about PM 2.5 - we are still in breach of the PM 2.5 limits and that is not going to be solved just by the ULEZ or the expansion. We are going to have to have a legally binding target put onto the Environment Bill and the powers that the Mayor has been asking for around construction, around the river. Those sorts of sources of emissions really need to be taken on board. The impacts of PM 2.5, those ultra-fine particles are still really pernicious.
Page 49
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Yes. A last quick question, Chair, and then I will hand over to you. It is about business really. I would just share a local story that the Chair will be aware of, wearing her other hat as a councillor in Islington. It is mind-blowing that an organisation like Ocado can be looking to build a plant next door to a school with an estimated 50 vehicle actions per hour at this time. The borough has handled it, but how do you reach out to a borough like that? That borough is lucky that it is on the leading edge. It has the facilities. There is another borough in my constituency that does not have the capacity and so industry and business are continuing business as usual, and that cannot be appropriate.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): No, it cannot be, but I would say that there are really good businesses out there who are leading on this.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Oh yes, I know about the good ones. We are talking about the ones that are in need of - I do not know - bringing together. Are you monitoring that? Are you aware that action is needed?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): The borough is more likely to know who those culprits are. We offer support through the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund (MAQF), so there is funding there to help boroughs work with their local businesses and their local Business Improvement Districts, or their industrial estates, about a whole host of things. We have had some very good projects that have come up showing best practice and then producing toolkits and advice and so on, but also practical changes to some of the zero-emission, which is the pioneering stuff that we want London to be moving towards. Out in Hackney and the city fringe there have been some really good examples. We are working in Dagenham with the industrial estate out there, where they want to put in electric vehicle charging points and so on.
There is some funding available for that but, collectively, those businesses should be following the best of the best and starting to think that their customers want it, their staff want it and, as a corporate social responsibility agenda, they should be thinking about these things. Some of that funding is available through what the Mayor provides, or TfL. Some of it is available through the Office for Low Emission Vehicles. It is great to hear that the Government is putting some funding into zero carbon activity on transportation but obviously, as we know, nowhere near enough if we are going to get to our 2050, 2030 indeed.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Thank you for that and I will continue to monitor your work. Thank you to you and your staff for the work that you are doing. I will certainly be continuing in the role that I currently have as a trustee of the Global Action Plan.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Thank you, Jennette.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Thank you, Jennette, and thank you for raising the Ocado depot because it is really shocking that it is building a whole new diesel distribution centre, when in a location like Islington they could be doing cargo e-bikes and electric vans for their deliveries. It is a dinosaur project that is coming from --
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: We are naming and shaming them, Chair.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): We are naming and shaming. It is shocking, and the community has risen up very magnificently to let them know in no uncertain terms how shocking it is.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Also, the Council.
Page 50
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Anyway, I am going to move on to our final few questions so that we can release you to get on with your day. Thinking about businesses, the take-up of the scrappage schemes to start off with was not as massive as it might have been, just £2.6 million out of an available £23 million. You have made some changes to the scheme to hopefully get more people to take it up. How is that going, and do you anticipate having to do more to try to get these older, dirtier vehicles from the smaller businesses off the road?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): It is going much better, but it is one of those things where you are never quite sure what the take-up is going to be because of a number of factors. They are small businesses. It is about timing and about cash flow and so on. We now have a collective spend and value of committed applications in the order of £6.7 million for the van scheme, and for the car and motorcycle scheme, or the one that is targeted at low income people, it is at £3.2 million, so it is going better and more steadily. Obviously, we want it to be spent but it is also about preparation for the expansion of the ULEZ, so that is key. That is not until October 2021, so we have 18 months-ish for people to be getting ready. Obviously, the sooner they get ready the better because it includes health benefits and air quality benefits and so on.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Do you think you need to be doing more to get these small businesses alerted to the help that is available to them and do you think that they are aware of what is out there?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): They are aware. We have been working very hard through a number of channels to make sure that they are aware. We worked with the Federation of Small Businesses about changes to the scheme that would make it more widely applicable. We changed the thresholds and so on and I think they are very comfortable with where we are at the moment.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): It is worth saying that there have been a lot of lessons learned for this process. It is the first time that a scrappage scheme focused on the environmental benefits has been delivered. There is a lot of targeted work that has been taking place. We have been very clear to TfL that it is important that we go and work with those who need the help the most, so people like sole traders at market. In terms of the marketing work that we have been doing more recently, it is about face-to-face work. That is important because these people work very hard. If you finish a long day the last thing you want to do is go home and look online and work out how you apply for something, and all of those kinds of things.
We have tried to simplify the process as much as possible, and the recent changes that have been made are clearly bearing fruit. You can see that in the take-up of the scheme, but it is important to bear in mind that the current context is challenging in terms of businesses were probably hesitating during the uncertainty of Brexit. We are now entering another period of some uncertainty, which is probably going to mean that not everyone is going to take up the scheme as quickly as perhaps we would have liked. It is really important that this scheme is available in the run-up to October [2020] and, also, what we will be doing with the ULEZ expansion in 2021. There is still a year and a half for people to take advantage of this funding to prepare for that.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes. You also have a £15,000 grant for polluting heavy vehicles, which was being launched this year [2020]. Has that launched or is it about to?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Not yet. We are just working out the details. We announced that it was going to be part of the scheme for up to three vehicles. We are just finalising the details of the scheme and we will launch when it is appropriate, notwithstanding - as Elliot said - the economic situation, although the Coronavirus situation might affect that. Page 51
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Sure, but that is aimed at helping businesses to be compliant ready for --
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes. It is a retrofit solution rather than buying new. We have had really good pre-registration with a number of companies and individuals pre-registering their interest, so we know there is likely to be good take up of that.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Great. Thank you.
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): As well as the retrofit, if someone wanted to, they could use the funding for scrappage as well.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): OK. Thinking about compliance with NO2 limits, last year, 34 out of 86 sites monitored in London exceeded the annual legal limits for NO2. Do you have any specific actions to try to address those hotspots, and are there going to be hotspots that you are not monitoring that might also need attention?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Quite possibly, I would have thought, because the network of fixed monitors is obviously fixed in certain places. We have the Breathe London monitoring network now, which is giving us a much finer level of detail of understanding by time of day as well, so you are now able to see and track the pollution incidents. Sometimes you can see that it is just related to general traffic. Sometimes it might be construction and sometimes there is something weird going on there, so that enables us or the local authorities to go and work out, well, what is it that might be helping to make that pollution worse in that area?
Elliot Treharne (Head of Air Quality, Greater London Authority): It is worth emphasising the potential value of the Breathe London network. One of the examples that came out of the Breathe London network was we identified a new hotspot that was near one of the bus garages. Again, I talked earlier about why it was so important that we prioritised the cleaning up of the bus fleet across London. That again provided us additional evidence of some of the impact we were seeing from the bus fleet. Of course, we have taken action to address that, which has been very important. You need the information, you need the data to know what the issues are so you can take the action to actually solve and address them.
One of the great things about the Breathe London project is that these sensors, which still have a good degree of accuracy - they are obviously not quite as robust as a £100,000 monitoring station - still give you good data and they can be moved. Through Breathe London we already monitor 30 schools and ten hospitals. We have additional funding in the budget to continue the scheme, and we want to explore how we can best use the network to have a better understanding across London in terms of the use of these sensors.
It is also worth highlighting the partnership that we did with Google, which we think was really innovative, where Google Street View actually took measurements across very large swathes of the City and, while we have always had modelling that has been very robust and very useful in terms of understanding what was going on, being able to collect, at all these different locations, information about - as Shirley was explaining - what was happening at different times of the day, is just invaluable in terms of understanding what the challenges are and helping us design the right policy solutions to them.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Certainly, that flexibility of technology is clearly a massive help. When it comes to PM 2.5, we are nowhere near getting to where we actually want to be. That obviously demonstrates that electric vehicles, while they are cleaner than diesel and petrol vehicles, actually just swapping all diesel and Page 52 petrol vehicles into electric vehicles will not sort out our air pollution problem. I think it was 80% of sites in London recorded levels of PM 2.5 above the WHO guidelines. Obviously, there is no safe exposure level and whether the WHO will change its guidelines at any point is something that we need to bear in mind. Given that the Mayor has pledged to try to meet those WHO guidelines by 2030, do you think that London is on track to achieve that and do you think that there is a risk that PM emissions could actually rise if we do not manage to bring traffic volumes down?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): We have done some studies that show that, with the combination of powers that we have and that the Government has - we set out the sort of powers that will be lobbying for, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done this modelling too - we could meet those targets, the PM 2.5, by 2030. The Government, however, seems to be reluctant to take its own department’s work into account and has said that it will not put a legally binding target on the face of the Bill, which we and many other metro Mayors, local authority leaders, health NGOs, health professionals - everybody - say is absolutely critical to put on the face of the Bill.
Therefore, we will carry on advocating for that legally binding target to be on the face of the Bill, recognising that there is no safe limit for PM 2.5. For the Government to say that it will include a target but let it consult for two years and then it will have 15 years to put it in is shocking, given we know what the health impacts are. That is why the Mayor has said, “I have adopted this target”, the first European mega city to do that, to take on that WHO target, and to work very hard.
While we are doing good stuff on reducing NOx and, while it is having some benefit on our PM 2.5 levels, it is nowhere near enough. We know that we need to do more, like expand the ULEZ, tighten up the LEZ, do more on tyre and brake wear, wood burning, construction, so the consultation, all the budget announcement yesterday about red diesel, it looks like it might affect construction machinery but it is to be confirmed whether this is a consultation, so they may row back. We put in place things that we might be able to do on construction machinery to drive down the PM 2.5 emissions from construction machinery, but it is through a very complicated process of using planning powers. Thank goodness we put some funding through the MAQF to support local authorities to do that. It is not the right way to do it. We should be putting it on the face of the Bill and getting people to do the right thing.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes, we can all agree on that. I have a final question, which is about encouraging more boroughs to bring forward additional town centre zero emission zones (ZEZ).
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): Yes.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): There are a couple. There is the one on the Islington/Hackney border and there is the one in the City of London.
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That is the Beech Street one.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes. How many of these ZEZs would be needed for the Mayor to get to a London-wide ZEZ by 2050?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): I do not think we have looked at it like that. What we have said is that each individual town centre or local authority needs to work out where the best place is to do that. Many of them have expressed interest. What we have done, given our transport authority function through TfL, is to provide the guidance on how you might do that in a way that is consistent across London, so that you do not have a ZEZ with a slightly different requirement here and a different one Page 53 over there, which businesses then have to try to navigate. What they want is some consistency across that, so that is what we have given.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Has that guidance come out?
Shirley Rodrigues (Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy): That guidance has come out. It has gone to the boroughs, and what we are working on now is a set of tools that can help borrowers working with an EU-funded project to help to design those ZEZs in a bit more detail, and we have partnered with the City of London [Corporation] on that.
Then obviously we are doing things like Car Free Day to get people to understand what their ZEZ - a car free zone - might look like. They are great examples of what it might feel like and be like to live or work in one of these areas. The Beech Street one is coming but the one in Hackney city fringe -- when people realise this is what it could be like and how much nicer it is, there is nothing more powerful than a good demonstration project.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Absolutely, yes, more good demonstration projects please. OK, thank you very much. That was a marathon session. Thank you to all your advisers. I would also like to take this opportunity to say a word or two about some of our Assembly Members who are not going to be on the Committee. I mean obviously Léonie [Cooper AM] and I have to find out whether we get re-elected or not, but Jennette [Arnold OBE AM] and Nicky [Gavron AM] and also Tony [Arbour AM] - who has had to leave us - have been on this Committee for a long time.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: Twenty years.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Twenty years on this Committee and, yes, I just want to wish you well. Thank you very much for all that you have contributed during these four years while Léonie and I have been chairing, and just to say that we will miss your input enormously and just thank you for all your very constructive contributions to the work and life of the Committee.
Nicky Gavron AM: Can I say thank you to you and to Léonie [Cooper AM] for your leadership in the last four years, and also to Shirley [Rodrigues] and her team who have been phenomenal over the last four years? It has been wonderful because before that, we had eight years of something else, and I do not want to get political.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): No, do not get political. Do not spoil it. We are being so marvellously non-political in thanking each other.
Nicky Gavron AM: I just wanted to say that.
Jennette Arnold OBE AM: We had a sense of how great the move had to be, put it like that.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Yes.
Nicky Gavron AM: Also, just as Jennette said, she will be keeping in touch through Global Action and I would also hope to keep in touch through the work I am going to do on climate change and urban planning, so thank you all of you.
Page 54
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): We look forward to being able to recycle you as guests in the future of course, but we might have to promise not to have you in and cross-question you for three hours because I would like to thank you Shirley and her team for what has been possibly our longest session.
Caroline Russell AM (Chair): Ever.
Léonie Cooper AM (Deputy Chair): No, not ever because I am pretty sure we have had some long meetings but that has been a really long one, but it has been a very good review, maybe not of the whole of the last 20 years but some of the contributions from our colleagues here has been able to bring in some of that, so it has been a very helpful meeting. Thank you.
Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 56 Agenda Item 7
Subject: Summary List of Actions
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 20 July 2020
This report will be considered in public.
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out details of ongoing and completed actions arising from previous meetings of the Environment Committee.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the completed and outstanding actions arising from its previous meetings, and additional correspondence.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 12 March 2020 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 5. Question and Answer Session with the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy
During the course of the discussion, the Deputy Mayor Completed. for Environment and Energy agreed to: Attached at Appendix 1. Provide a copy of the independent evaluation into the 12-month ‘Licence Lite’ pilot project; Explore what could be shared with the Committee, and when, in terms of the success metrics developed for London Power. The Deputy Mayor also invited Committee Members to write to her with any additional requests about London Power, which would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in light of cited commercial confidentiality issues; Provide details on the percentage supply that was being contributed by the Mayor’s current decentralised energy programmes;
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 57
Provide further information on the number of people who had accessed the online maps and tools that showed Londoners how green the city is; Provide data showing the number of trees that had been planted during the 2016-2020 mayoral term; and Confirm whether negotiations had taken place with boroughs on the charges for green waste collection.
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation In progress. Senior Policy with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output Adviser. from the discussion.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 13 February 2020 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 6. The Climate Emergency (Emissions) During the course of the discussion, John Kolm-Murray, In progress. Programme Programme Manager, Greater London Authority (GLA), Followed-up Manager, GLA. agreed to provide the Committee with further information on 30 June on whether any work had been done on the potential 2020. impact that the improvement of Energy Performance Certificate ratings could have on rent rates in London.
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Completed. with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output See Agenda from the discussion. Item 8.
Page 58
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 15 January 2020 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 6. Climate Change and Extreme Weather During the course of the discussion, Jacob Tompkins In progress. Co-Founder and OBE, Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer, Water Followed-up Chief Technical Retail Company, agreed to provide the Committee with on 30 June Officer, Water the site locations that the Community Water 2020. Retail Company. Management for a Liveable London project had been focusing on. That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation Completed. with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output See Agenda from the discussion. Item 8.
Actions Arising from the Meeting on 6 December 2018 Minute Topic Status For action by Number 5. Cold and Damp Homes in London During the course of the discussion, Members requested In progress. Programme an explanation for why the amount of money allocated Followed up Manager, Energy, for energy and carbon reduction programmes in 2020/21, on 30 June RE:NEW, GLA. 2021/22 and 2022/23 is reducing. 2020.
3. Correspondence
3.1 On 20 March 2020, the Chair received correspondence from the Environment Agency on their response to COVID-19. The letter is attached at Appendix 2.
3.2 On 19 June 2020, Members of the Committee received an update from the Chair of HACAN East (the sister organisation of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise). The letter is attached at Appendix 3.
3.3 In advance of the Committee’s meeting in July, the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy wrote to the Chair with a summary of how Mayoral environmental programmes have progressed during the COVID-19 crisis. A copy of the letter is attached at Appendix 4.
3.4 The GLA Environment Team provided the Committee with a written update on air quality data in London. This briefing is attached at Appendix 5.
3.5 The Committee is recommended to note the additional correspondence received.
Page 59
4. Legal Implications
4.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Letter from the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, dated 5 June 2020 Appendix 2 – Letter from the Environment Agency, dated 20 March 2020 Appendix 3 – Update email from Chair of HACAN East, dated 19 June 2020 Appendix 4 – Letter from the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, dated 2 July 2020 Appendix 5 – Air Quality Data Briefing, received 8 July 2020
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4383 Email: [email protected]
Page 60 Appendix 1
Caroline Russell AM Date: 5 June 2020 Chair of the Environment Committee City Hall The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA (Sent via email)
Dear Caroline,
Re: Environment Committee – 12 March 2020
Thank you for inviting me to the Environment Committee meeting on 12 March 2020 and for the opportunity to update you on the progress the Mayor has made in relation to climate change, air quality, green infrastructure, waste and incineration, and energy for Londoners. As highlighted during the meeting, I would like to thank the Committee again for its input and recommendations over the past few years, which have helped to inform our work.
Please find our response to your request for additional information in annex 1 of this letter. Apologies for the delayed response, which required gathering additional information from GLA teams and that under current working circumstances has taken a little bit longer than usual.
If you have any additional comments please contact my Senior Personal Assistant, Carl Ridgers on 020 7983 5897 or [email protected], who will be able to commission a response.
Yours sincerely,
Shirley Rodrigues Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy
1 Page 61 Annex 1 - Response to Environment Committee’s request for additional information
To provide the Committee with a copy of the independent evaluation into the 12-month ‘Licence Lite’ pilot project
Response: GLA commissioned an evaluation of Licence Lite from Element Energy last year. This report was commissioned to capture the lessons learnt from the project to inform future work within the GLA. The report is attached to this correspondence. Please note some text has been redacted for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
To explore what can be shared and when with the Committee in terms of the success metrics developed for London Power. You also invited Committee Members to write to you with any additional information requests about London Power, which would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in light of commercial confidentiality issues
Response: To balance protecting the commercial position of London Power against our desire to be as transparent as possible, we will be publishing data quarterly. The first full quarter’s data will be published following the end of Q1 2020/21 in July 2020. This will include: • Total number of customers on supply with London Power • Average carbon reduction per household supplied by London Power • Average financial saving per household, compared to the price cap.
We intend to publish this information on the London Power page of the london.gov website; we will write to inform the Committee when the data is first published in July. Any further information requests can be dealt with on a case by case basis.
To provide the Committee with details on the percentage of supply that is being contributed currently by the Mayor’s current decentralised energy programmes
Response: The London Environment Strategy has a target to supply 15 per cent of London’s energy through decentralised, low carbon sources by 2030. Based on the latest available data, approximately four per cent of London’s electricity and approximately two per cent of London’s space heating and domestic hot water, are supplied from decentralised energy sources1. The Mayor has a range of programmes to demonstrate new concepts, overcome barriers and stimulate demand for Decentralised Energy. In 2020, we estimate that the three projects so far built under the Decentralised Energy Enabling Project will generate 7.6MWh of heat, and 3.2MWh of electricity; there are a further 36 projects being supported under the programme and we are working to extend this support through a new Local Energy Accelerator which we hope to launch later this year to provide further support through to 2023. Solar Together London has resulted in 1.95MW installed capacity.
1 Estimated from BEIS 2018 data on renewable electricity generation and energy from CHP, LEGGI 2017 data on electricity demand and the London Heat Map for heat demand.
2 Page 62 To provide the Committee with further information on the number of people who have accessed the online maps and tools that show Londoners how green the city is
Response: A variety of maps and tools have been created to provide information about London’s green infrastructure to a wide range of audiences, including: London boroughs, environmental NGOs, and Londoners. These include the Green Infrastructure Focus Map, a Tree Canopy Cover Map and a Green Cover Map. These are available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and- biodiversity/green-infrastructure-maps-and-tools. During 2019 – the first full year when these were made available – there were 25,377 unique views of the web-pages; during the first quarter of 2020 there were 7,210 unique views.
To provide the Committee with data showing the number of trees that have been planted during the 2016-2020 mayoral term
Response: The table below shows the trees planted by borough with Mayoral funding between May 2016 and March 2020. This includes trees funded through the Greener City Fund (including Community Tree Planting Grants, community tree packs, giveaways to Londoners), other GLA programmes, and those planted on the Transport for London Road network.
‘Borough not known’ includes trees planted through London-wide projects and giveaways, where borough data is not held or not available at this time. The number of trees planted in each borough varies according to the funding applications received, available planting space, and the type of projects.
Borough Trees planted with Mayoral funding May 2016 - March 2020 Barking and Dagenham 14231 Barnet 4151 Bexley 7024 Brent 4299 Bromley 6142 Camden 6070 City of London 819 Croydon 4651 Ealing 49751 Enfield 7563 Greenwich 11092 Hackney 6509 Hammersmith and Fulham 3351 Haringey 4996 Harrow 3088 Havering 13913 Hillingdon 2944 Hounslow 4855
3 Page 63 Islington 3271 Kensington and Chelsea 1528 Kingston upon Thames 3583 Lambeth 6689 Lewisham 20692 Merton 5812 Newham 12370 Redbridge 33786 Richmond upon Thames 3196 Southwark 5929 Sutton 4771 Tower Hamlets 4304 Waltham Forest 6317 Wandsworth 3712 Westminster 1451 Borough not recorded 14144 Total GLA funded 287004
To confirm to the Committee whether negotiations had taken place with boroughs on the charges for green waste collection
Response: The Mayor has always made it clear that charging for green waste collection is a local decision. Changes to green waste collections have been highlighted by some boroughs through the process of developing their Reduction and Recycling Plans (RRPs). The Mayor has made it clear that green waste should be collected and treated separately from food waste but has not provided a position on charging for these services.
Following the publication of their Resources and Waste Strategy in December 2018 the Government consulted on consistency in recycling collections in 2019. In his response to that consultation the Mayor made clear his belief that the evidence on this issue is, as yet, too mixed to provide a definitive policy direction on whether charging for green waste collections or not increases recycling performance. Until such time as there is a clear and decisive evidence base, which the Mayor has urged the Government to put in place, the Mayor maintains that the provision of free or charged garden waste services should continue to be a matter of local discretion.
It is clear though that the last five years has seen a general move away from free collections to chargeable services across London because of pressures on local authority budgets. The Mayor recognises that many of London’s boroughs have had to reduce or suspend their garden waste collections due to Covid-19 but that these services are being restored as staffing levels begin to return to normal and he is very grateful to all those involved in ensuring that services are provided where possible and that health risks are being minimised. If boroughs require support reviewing their recycling services now or in the future this is available through the London Waste and Recycling Board, the joint Mayoral and London Borough body.
4 Page 64 Project Name Document Name
Licence Lite Evaluation
A Report
for
Greater London Authority
15th October 2019
Element Energy Limited Suite 1, Bishop Bateman Court Thompson’s Lane Cambridge, CB5 8AQ
Tel: 01223 852499 Fax: 01223 353475
1 Page 65 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Contents
1 Executive Summary...... 1 2 Overview of Objectives and Approach ...... 5 2.1 Objectives ...... 5
2.2 Approach ...... 5
2.3 Key Achievements ...... 5
3 The Licence Lite Framework ...... 6 3.1 The ‘Licence Lite’ Regulatory framework ...... 6
3.2 Roles and Contracts ...... 7
4 Barriers and Milestones ...... 10 4.1 Developing Licence Lite (2009 - 2017) ...... 10
4.2 The Pilot (2018) ...... 11
5 Direct Impact of Licence Lite ...... 15 5.1 Energy Generation and demand ...... 15
5.2 Cost of Developing the Programme ...... 16
5.3 Costs & Revenues of the Pilot...... 17
5.4 Additional Benefits ...... 22
5.5 Market and Policy Developments ...... 23
6 Indirect Impact of the Project ...... 25 6.1 5-year programme scenario ...... 25
6.2 Market & Policy Impacts ...... 27
6.3 Future Applications ...... 28
7 Conclusions ...... 30 7.1 Key achievements ...... 30
7.2 Lessons Learned ...... 31
Page 66 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Authors
For comments or queries please contact:
+44 (0)203 813 3910
Page 67 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
1 Executive Summary
Objectives The GLA developed the Licence Lite (LL) scheme to support decentralised energy generators to receive higher payments for their energy. It originally was intended to support the previous Mayor’s commitment to 25% of London’s energy to be generated by decentralised sources by 2030. The 12-month pilot programme supported the current Mayor’s aim of 15% of London’s energy to be generated by local, decentralised energy by 2030, as well as a target of 2 GW solar PV generation in London by 2050.
The Licence Lite Scheme The scheme tested and helped Ofgem develop a novel regulatory route to market for small suppliers that allowed a Licence Lite supplier to contract with a Third-Party Licence Supplier (TPLS) to avoid adhering to complex and costly market codes. This reduces the barriers to entry and costs for the License Lite supplier, in this case the GLA, enabling them to pay the energy generators a higher price for their existing generation and sell the generation on to local consumers. The scheme also developed a new commercial arrangement with three novel contractual arrangements between the stakeholders:
• Supplier Service Netting off Agreement (SSNOA): Arrangement between the TPLS and Licence Lite supplier in which the TPLS: adheres to market codes; meters and bills the consumers and generators, buys and sells all electricity generated or consumed in the programme off the wholesale market; and pays imbalance fees after settlement taking on the imbalance risk. In return the GLA pays the import and use of system charges and a fixed management fee. • Supply Agreement (SA): The Licence Lite supplier guarantees the supply of their energy and the consumer pays the Licence Lite supplier for their electricity and the system and network charges. • Purchase Agreement (PA): The Licence Lite supplier guarantees to buy the exported energy generated and pays the generator for their exported energy along with the embedded generator benefits and other system benefits. The GLA’s Licence Lite pilot involved six stakeholders in the following roles:
• Peabody Trust – electricity generator* • Scottish and Southern Energy – electricity generator* • The GLA – License Lite (LL) supplier • Transport for London (TfL) – electricity consumer • RWE Npower – Third Party Licenced Supplier* • Office of Gas and Electricity Markets – the regulator *Stakeholders procured through EU OJEU procurement process.
The figure below presents the relationships between the various stakeholders.
1 Page 68 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Timeline The GLA began discussions with Ofgem about Licence Lite in 2009. The previous Mayor approved the development of the Licence Lite application in 2012. The GLA and Ofgem iteratively developed the licence and contracting until 2017. During this period, the GLA went through several rounds of procurement due to the large number of actors involved in the scheme, the novel nature of the regulatory commercial arrangements and the time- consuming EU requirements for public procurements above certain values. In August 2017, the GLA was approved as a Licence Lite supplier. In January 2018, the GLA began a 12- month pilot aiming to trial the new commercial model and regulatory framework, establishing the administrative processes and commercial viability for the Licence Lite supplier to buy and sell export electricity from decentralised generation. The pilot ended in December 2018. The TPLS (Npower) gave notice of their intention to terminate the contract in March 2018, and the GLA determined it would be too uncertain and costly to procure another TPLS to continue the programme for another 4 years.
Achievements The development of the Licence Lite framework and programme represented several key achievements for the GLA.
2 Page 69 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
The GLA successfully developed an innovative regulatory framework and route to market with the help of Ofgem. The GLA was able to successfully complete the project when another organisation might not have because they were willing to take on some wholesale risk; were able to negotiate with the TPLS to take on the imbalance risk; and had the expertise to deliver the project. The fact that only two other suppliers have obtained a Licence Lite reflects the significant complexity of the current regulation and the institutional barriers that the GLA had to overcome with effective legal expertise and project management. The lessons learnt can be used to inform regulators of existing institutional barriers to developing new market mechanisms e.g. P2P models.
The GLA developed novel and innovative procurement frameworks, contractual arrangements and commercial models which they demonstrated over the 12-month pilot. While these took longer to develop than initially predicted, they were able to highlight the challenges in coordinating the needs of many actors, matching generation and demand needs, offering bespoke energy services, and meeting the obligations of a Licence Lite supplier. Thus, the Licence Lite model, which offers a route to higher revenues for smaller decentralised energy providers, could still have a significant positive impact on the market if a commercial model is proven that is viable for all parties.
Lessons Learned From the implementation of the pilot scheme, there are several lessons to be learnt from the administrative and regulatory barriers faced by the scheme. The Licence Lite pilot revealed the benefit of highlighting national market failures and regulatory barriers and the role for the GLA in considering potential measures to address them. While the Licence Lite model may have only niche applications, the GLA could apply the learnings from Licence Lite to inform their delivery of future pilots supporting decentralised energy generation and low carbon energy systems. The GLA will also continue developing their role as an enabler and supplier of electricity through the Energy from Londoners programme. Future programmes could learn from the regulatory, market, procurement, contracting, administration, communication and commercial findings from Licence Lite.
The Licence Lite scheme revealed that involvement in novel energy market regulation is complex, time consuming, and involves a high degree of uncertainty. While the scheme successfully developed a new regulatory route to market for suppliers through the ‘licence lite’, it may not have represented the ‘lower barrier’ route to market originally intended due to the complexity of the commercial arrangements necessary for a viable business model. The commercial arrangements were also more complex in practice than in theory, resulting in a final commercial arrangement that was not viable for all parties. It had been intended to be a ‘peer-to-peer’ model, however this was not able to be delivered in practice and instead all the electricity was bought and sold off the wholesale market resulting in higher shared system costs, exposure for the GLA to wholesale risk when generation was less than the demand, and exposure to imbalance risk for the TPLS. Since a viable commercial model would be critical to scaling a project, critical changes to commercial arrangements should be flagged within the project governance framework and considered as a key risk to moving the project forward. Further research is also needed to determine whether the market structure could allow peer-to-peer trading in the future. The EU regulation requires public bodies to complete lengthy and sequential procurement processes for higher value services which took approximately three years and complicated the delivery of the Licence Lite scheme. The OJEU procurement processes and sequential procurements of the TPLS and generators added several years to the start of the programme. In addition, the high potential cost, time and uncertainty to procure a new TPLS
3 Page 70 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA after Npower terminated their contract resulted in a decision not to take the project forward. This regulated additional time and costs for procurement for public bodies may not be compatible with the Licence Lite purpose to reduce barriers to entry for suppliers. The contractual arrangements did not ensure communication between the TPLS, generators and consumers, resulting in stakeholders reporting difficulties with metering and invoicing, higher administration, and little transparency of the results of the programme. The generators had not prepared to change meter operating provider (MOP) prior to the start of the pilot despite the contracts stating that the GLA may nominate a new MOP. This was not raised as an issue by the GLA until the TPLS tried to take over control of the meters and was informed of conflicting contracts, providing additional difficulties and a 3-month delay in Peabody joining the project. To increase transparency, procurement and contractual arrangements should also be reconsidered to ensure communication between parties through clear statements of the KPIs for communication and expected service delivery levels. Updating the conditions in the contracts, e.g. for generators switching their MOP in the PA and the SSNOA break clauses, should also be investigated further to minimise confusion. Commercial viability for the TPLS will require reduction of administrative costs along with higher paying consumers. Accessing metering data for small generation proved difficult and costly, resulting in some of Peabody’s PV generation not able to be included in the scheme and other generation meter data being accessed less frequently. The management fee for the TPLS may not have covered the increased cost of providing bespoke support for new commercial arrangements for Npower while the high fixed cost of monthly meter management passed to the GLA resulted in a loss during winter months for the GLA for small solar generation. The costs may be reduced through economies of scale if the TPLS contracts with larger generation or develops standardised products or with improved metering capabilities on the generation minimising the metering fee. Commercial viability for the Licence Lite supplier requires better match between generation and supply, and a selection of smaller, higher paying consumers. These issues were identified prior to the pilot; however, they are difficult to achieve at a small scale. The mismatch between supply and demand exposed the GLA to wholesale risk when the generation was lower than TfL’s demand, and the TPLS to imbalance risk if the generation was higher than the demand. In the pilot, unpredictable short falls in generation along with steep wholesale price rises resulted in the GLA paying a higher wholesale cost for importing energy. The generators had the option to contract for a fixed generation to share the risk for a higher price for generation, but both opted out. Furthermore, the rates paid by TfL were very low to match those prices they typically pay for their large electricity demand; although higher rates from smaller consumers could help make the Licence Lite model cost-effective for suppliers. However, complex and costly consumer protection administration is required by the Licence Lite supplier when supplying small consumers, which will need to be evaluated and modified if this or similar schemes are to be realised with small consumers at scale. This report is an independent evaluation of the GLA’s Licence Lite pilot including analysis of public reports, project and legal documentation, and programme metering and billing documentation. Stakeholders were also interviewed from the GLA, TfL, Npower and Peabody, however due to the length and breadth of the programme, some stakeholders had not been involved in all aspects or across the entire timeframe of the programme and may reflect some bias of internal communications where not further information could be found.
4 Page 71 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
2 Overview of Objectives and Approach
2.1 Objectives The aim of the Licence Lite Scheme was to increase investment in decentralised energy in London. This originally supported the previous Mayor’s commitment to 25% of London’s energy to be generated by decentralised energy by 20301, and now supports the current Mayors target of 15% of London’s heat and power to be generated by local, decentralised energy by 2030. The policy objective originally supported decentralised energy investment in CHP and heat networks, but this was revised just prior to pilot delivery to support a target of 2 GW solar capacity installed and a zero-carbon London by 20502 3, in line with the current Mayor’s objectives and targets at the time.
2.2 Approach A market failure was identified that small scale generators in London were not able to fully access markets to receive the highest payment for their generated electricity, due to their limited size4. The Licence Lite scheme aimed to develop a new commercial model and regulatory route that would enable small scale generators to receive a higher price for their energy by a ‘Licence Lite’ supplier purchasing excess low carbon generation in London and selling it on to local organisations. The GLA worked with Ofgem to develop a novel junior supply licence, or ‘Licence Lite’, where the supplier avoids having to adhere to complex market code requirements by contracting with a Third-Party Licensed Supplier (TPLS). This reduces the barriers to entry for the License Lite supplier, in this case the GLA, and the lower regulatory costs and overheads allowed them to pay the generators a higher price for their exported generation. The 12-month Licence Lite pilot aimed to trial a new commercial model and the regulatory framework, establishing the trading arrangements and processes for a License Lite supplier to buy electricity from small scale generators and sell it on to nearby consumers. The insights gained from this trial could have been used to extend the trial into a 5-year project5 or to allow the commercial or regulatory models to be replicated by the private or public sectors.
2.3 Key Achievements The Licence Lite programme represented an important step towards the GLA helping to reduce market barriers to deployment of decentralised energy. When the junior supply licence was first proposed by Ofgem in 2009, there was strong interest amongst smaller generators, but none had the financial backing or expertise necessary to establish the licence6. Hence, the GLA took the leadership to be the first public authority to apply for a ‘Licence Lite’ in 2013. After five years of development and consultation the GLA was the second organisation to receive approval as a Licence Lite
1 The Guardian, 2014, Boris Johnson outlines plan to bolster London's energy independence 2 Solar action Plan for London, June 2018, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/solar_action_plan.pdf 3 London Environment Strategy, May 2018, https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s70409/Appendix%202%20Draft%20London%20 Environment%20Strategy.pdf 4 Work commissioned by Cornwall Energy 5 Greater London Authority, Request for Mayoral Decision – MD2157 6 Licence Lite Business Plan, 2016 https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s56642/Licence%20Lite%20- %20Appendix%203.pdf
5 Page 72 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA supplier. When they received the Licence Lite in 2017, still no other local authorities or generators had applied, although private companies EVenergi and PX supply limited were granted a Licence Lite at a similar time in a different context. This reflected the challenge and complexity of developing the necessary components of the scheme for the first time7. During this period, the GLA also successfully developed bespoke contractual arrangements between parties and procurement processes which set up a framework for a new commercial model. The contracts took a significant period of development because they were novel agreements for a new regulatory environment which changed shape as it developed from theory to practice. While much time was put into the development of these new contractual arrangements, they could now form the basis for future legal arrangements for similar commercial models to save time for future parties. The pilot achieved the primary objective of providing increased revenue streams to decentralised energy generators, reducing the market failure for small generators. The Licence Lite pilot provided locally generated low-carbon energy to TfL, supporting the delivery of the Mayor’s Manifesto pledge to help Londoners generate more low-carbon energy and to buy clean energy generated across the city, using it to power GLA and TfL facilities8.
3 The Licence Lite Framework
3.1 The ‘Licence Lite’ Regulatory framework The purpose of Licence Lite (LL) is to reduce barriers to entry for small suppliers by enabling them to partner with an existing supplier to pass on responsibility for some of the costly and technically challenging elements of the electricity supply licence9.
The Licence Lite relieves the supplier of the costly adherence to certain market codes (detailed in section 11.2 of the standard electricity supply license) which have disproportionally higher regulatory costs for small suppliers. These codes are the Master Registration Agreement (MRA); the Distribution Connection and Use of System Agreement (DCUSA); the Connection and Use of System Code (CUSC); and the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC). However, the Licence Lite has some restrictions; the Licence Lite supplier may not trade on the wholesale market, provide system balancing services, or supply to consumers with less than 100,000 kWh annual consumption without additional consumer protection requirements10.
Organisations, such as the GLA, may wish to apply to become a Licence Lite Supplier for several reasons:
• The barriers to entry to becoming a Licence Lite supplier are much lower than to becoming a fully licensed supplier, requiring less regulatory capacity and expertise,
7 Cornwall Energy, 24 August 2017, First ever Licence Lite grant shows how far the market has come, https://www.cornwall-insight.com/newsroom/all-news/first-ever-licence-lite- grant-shows-how-far-the-market-has-come 8 Sadiq Khan for London: A Manifesto for all Londoners, 2016. Pg 67 https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/569cb9526a21db3279000001/attachments /original/1457451016/x160668_Sadiq_Khan_Manifesto.pdf?1457451016 9 Ofgem, An Introduction to Licence Lite: For people considering or intending to apply. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2015/04/482_an_introduction_to_licence _lite_factsheet_web_0.pdf
6 Page 73 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
however they still maintain a direct relationship with consumers and control over their supply • LL suppliers have reduced administrative responsibilities (and associated financial costs), enabling them to use innovative business models; e.g. providing small scale generators with increased revenues
In order to apply, a potential supplier must meet several criteria. They must have contracted with a Third-Party Licenced Supplier (TPLS) to adhere on the Licence Lite supplier’s behalf to the market codes from which the Licence Lite supplier is exempt, and to ensure that the Licence Lite supplier can access the information necessary to meet their obligations. They must apply to Ofgem with supporting documentation and comply with all supplier licence obligations. This includes ensuring they can meet the supply to their customers if their generation does not meet demand and meeting regulatory obligations other than the market codes in section 11.2 of the standard electricity supply license.
3.2 Roles and Contracts The GLA’s Licence Lite pilot involved six stakeholders in the following roles:
• Peabody Trust – electricity generator • Scottish and Southern Energy – electricity generator • The GLA – License Lite (LL) supplier • Transport for London (TfL) – electricity consumer • RWE Npower – Third Party Licenced Supplier • Office of Gas and Electricity Markets – the regulator
The GLA’s Licence Lite commercial model was developed using three contractual agreement types:
• Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) • Supply Agreement (SA) • Supplier Services Netting Off Agreement (SSNOA)
Error! Reference source not found. presents the relationships between the various s takeholders.
7 Page 74 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Figure 1 Licence Lite Contractual Arrangement
Third-Party Licenced Supplier & Supplier Service and Netting Off Agreement (SSNOA) The Supplier Services and Netting off Agreement SSNOA agreement ensures that the TPLS11:
• Adheres to the market codes set out in section 11.2 of the standard electricity supply license on behalf of the GLA. • Provides the Licence Lite supplier with top-up electricity or buys surplus electricity when needed and provides short-term balancing services • Provides grid interface services • Allocates responsibility for procuring metering arrangements, but encourages the Licence Lite supplier to appoint the TPLS as the metering agent
11 Lux Nova Partners, July 2017, Report on Contract Structure, Content and Associated Legal Risks
8 Page 75 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
The break clause gives the TPLS a right to terminate the agreement early with 3 months’ notice. Termination of the SSNOA results in automatic termination of the PPA and SA. The TPLS, Npower, entered into a SSNOA with the Licence Lite supplier, the GLA, to purchase and buy all the energy generated and demanded on the forward spot market and pay imbalance fees after settlement. Under a SSNOA, the TPLS then charges a fixed management fee to the Licence Lite Supplier for metering, billing, and sale of energy as well as code compliance activities, while the imbalance risk was held by the TPLS. In addition, the TPLS invoices the Licence Lite supplier for the costs of importing the demanded electricity from the spot market, and the Licence Lite supplier invoices the TPLS for the revenues obtained by the latter from sale of the generated electricity into the spot market. The SSNOA was a novel agreement but used existing industry terminology so it could be understood by future TPLS providers.
Consumer & Supply Agreement (SA) The SA ensures that the consumer, TfL, buys electricity from the Licence Lite supplier, the GLA, at the price agreed and prevents the consumer from buying electricity from other suppliers for those sites. Some tasks required by the SA represent requirements that flow down from the TPLS under the SSNOA; for example, according to the SA, the consumer must provide the Licence Lite supplier with demand forecasts which the Licence Lite supplier must provide to the TPLS. The customer is only allowed to terminate the contract if the supplier ceases providing the service.
The consumer, TfL, entered into contract with the Licence Lite supplier, the GLA, to supply electricity to two of their depots over the course of the pilot. A fixed electricity import price was negotiated for each period which the consumer, the TfL, payed for any electricity demanded in those periods. Since TfL has a very large and consistent electricity demand, they have high bargaining power on the future electricity market and typically pay a very low price for their electricity compared to other consumers. Thus, the fixed price agreed for TfL to pay for their electricity in the SA was low enough to ensure that TfL was not making a loss by participating in the scheme, but significantly lower than the GLA may have received from other consumers.
Generators & Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) The Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) ensures the supplier, the GLA, buys electricity from the generators and prevents the generators from selling to other buyers. The PPA states the negotiated price the Licence Lite supplier pays for exported generation and for embedded generation benefits. The PPA ends after one year, unless an extension is agreed. The generators, Peabody and SSE, each entered into a different (PPA) contract with the Licence Lite supplier, the GLA, to sell their exported generation. Peabody sold exported electricity from a subset of their solar PV generation across several sites while SSE sold electricity produced by CHP generators on one of their sites. The generators were not willing to take the risk to guarantee a certain level of generation, and instead agreed to accept a lower price for all ‘uncontracted generation’. The GLA also included that all the embedded benefits are passed on from the supplier to the generator, meaning they offer better value to the generators than other suppliers would offer.
Licence Lite Supplier (all contracts) The Licence Lite supplier, the GLA, entered into a contract with Ofgem, the regulator, to become a Licence Lite Supplier, in addition to the PPAs with the generators, SA with the generator and SSNOA with the TPLS.
9 Page 76 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
4 Barriers and Milestones
4.1 Developing Licence Lite (2009 - 2017) The programme developed a novel regulatory scheme and bespoke agreements, resulting in a lengthy back-and-forth legal, procurement and governance process. Due to the novelty of many of the components, the timing was highlighted early as ‘difficult to predict’12. However, the GLA’s use of legal and financial consultations and project management helped them overcome these barriers and follow through with Licence Lite.
The GLA began discussing the Licence Lite model with Ofgem in 2009, and the previous Mayor approved the Licence Lite programme to begin developing the regulatory and commercial framework in 2012 (see timeline in Figure 2 or full timeline in section Error! Reference source not found.). The development of the initial regulatory scheme with Ofgem led to substantial delays to the project as it took nearly two years to go back and forth between the GLA and Ofgem to develop the initial regulatory framework for all the Licence Lite applications. The GLA applied for their first junior supply licence in February 2013, after a year of development following the previous Mayor’s approval of the programme. Since the GLA was the first ever applicant, it took Ofgem 9 months to confirm the regulatory framework and contract relationship in late 2013. This was a major milestone for Ofgem and the GLA in supporting the Licence Lite regulatory framework.
It took a further year and a half for the GLA to revise the Licence Lite application as it became clear that the conditions under which the GLA would be supplying electricity had to be defined differently from originally envisioned13. This was because throughout the development, the technical requirements, for example specifying a list of premises GLA could supply to, had to be changed to ensure the GLA could adequately administer the supply activities. In November 2015, the GLA re-applied for the Licence Lite supplier licence. Nearly a year later, Ofgem conditionally approved it in October 2016, subject to no further changes between the contractual arrangements of the TPLS and the GLA14.
During the development of the Licence Lite licence, the GLA carried out two public procurements in series, the Market Interface Services and Electricity Generating Framework15, to obtain a TPLS and secure a group of prequalified generators. The procurements were both new to the market and took longer than expected, with the requirement to follow the OJEU process and procure sequentially adding significant delays at the early stages16. Nevertheless, these procurements were successfully completed by 2016, representing a significant milestone in the project and for the development of the procurement process. The ‘mini-competition’ to secure the generator took a further 18 months until 2017 because many of the pre-qualified generators in the ‘Electricity Generating Framework’ were locked into PPAs and could not sign new contracts yet.
Meanwhile, procuring and contracting with the consumer, TfL, at this time also posed difficulties. While TfL stated they were interested in being involved in Licence Lite an supporting the GLA, TfL is also a large public procurer of energy, with a strict procurement
12 Time Line for Licence Lite, Energy for London Archive, June 16, 2014 http://www.energyforlondon.org/tag/ofgem/ 13 DD1416 November, 2015 14 The GLA’s application to Ofgem for a Licence Lite licence was approved by DD897, and varied by DD1416. 15 OJEU 2014-000024 & OJEU 201 5/5 094-171324 respectively 16 GLA Lux Nova: Innovation Over the Grid. April 2018
10 Page 77 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA framework and strong negotiating position which they are able to leverage to buy energy at a low price in the forward electricity markets. While other consumers were considered, supplying to such a large consumer (greater than 100,000 kWh per annum) meant the GLA as Licence Lite supplier did not have to follow the consumer protection obligations associated with supplying microconsumers, which would have been costly to administer. TfL have a strict procurement framework; however, the Mayor was able to mandate TfL buy the electricity from the GLA through a Mayoral Directive to ensure the GLA could supply two of TfL’s depots in the programme17. The GLA was also able to select which of TfL’s sites to supply to across the portfolio to best match the generation they were contracted to sell.
After the procurement processes, the bespoke development of three commercial agreements, a PPA, SA, and SSNOA, between five parties took significant time and legal expertise to negotiate. This was exacerbated as the complexity of the regulatory and commercial practicalities became clear and new conditions had to be developed. The SSNOA took longer to develop as it evolved over time and was a very different service to those previously provided by the TPLS, Npower. The scheme started developing an SSNOA which involved Npower buying and selling only the difference between generation, provided by the generators, and supply, demanded by TfL, on the wholesale market. However, after Npower and the GLA entered into contract, Npower explained that issues around VAT and accounting transparency required supply and generation volumes to be separate. The arrangement had to be renegotiated since Npower was required to buy and sell all the generation and supply on the wholesale market. This added both additional expenses and income to the GLA balance sheet and further delays to amend the junior-supply licence application for Ofgem18.
After development of the commercial arrangements, getting Mayoral approval and executing contracts took a further 9 months. The procurement contracts for the pilot were initially signed in August 2017, representing another significant milestone in the programme development, as it was difficult to get all the stakeholders to synchronise their procurement processes. Subsequent amendments to contractual arrangement with the TPLS required the final amendments to the Licence Lite application which Ofgem approved in October 2017. At this point, Ofgem had just awarded the other two other Licence Lite approvals in the previous 2 months, and no more would be approved after the GLA. This delay led to an extremely short period of three months to make final arrangements for the pilot to begin. The final amended contract agreements were signed on November 2017.
4.2 The Pilot (2018) The pilot began in January 2018 and successfully ran for the full planned 12-month period. During the pilot, the commercial arrangement and regulatory scheme were successfully demonstrated, although there were several unexpected administrative, communicative and commercial difficulties identified during the delivery.
The first issue surrounded the metering operation of the generation. The PPA signed by Peabody and the GLA grants the GLA access to the metering information and to install any metering equipment and allows them to nominate the Meter operating provider (MOP) or the generator can nominate an alternative MOP at the time of signing the PPA. However, when the pilot started in January 2018, neither Peabody nor SSE’s generation had switched metering arrangements. Peabody’s PV generation had a contract with a conflicting contract with a MOP which they had not previously notified to the GLA. Peabody took 3 months to
17 MD2157 Licence Lite, 24 August 2017 18 DD2344
11 Page 78 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA switch MOPs to avoid paying an early disconnection fee to their existing MOP while SSE’s export data was manually recorded until the meters could be replaced. This resulted in no generation from Peabody being included in the pilot until April 2018. Since the project governance dashboard was submitted quarterly during the pilot, this issue was not able to be raised prior to its resolution by the end of the first quarter (Q1). The final Q1 project governance dashboard reported that the Peabody generation would be purchased until March 2019 as a resolution.
Another issue revolved around provision of services to the generators (Peabody and SSE) and consumer (TfL). Usually, TfL would have a designated customer service and account manager from the energy service provider; however, the contractual arrangements in the scheme meant that the GLA was the point of contact for all customer service issues. The GLA had sufficient resources to ensure the pilot was delivered successfully, however it was not the purpose of the pilot to provide the same level of customer service that is typical for consumers such as TfL. The GLA thus had limited dedicated customer service resources which had to relay all information from the TPLS (Npower), since the TPLS and the generators and consumer were not in communication. This resulted in levels of communication to the generators and consumers below that which was typical of electricity suppliers. Customer service levels and FTE risks were not raised as an issue in the project governance framework.
Invoices from the GLA to SSE, Peabody and TfL were delayed and intermittent because the GLA was only receiving invoices from Npower every 4-6 months rather than every month. TfL reported that the lack of direct access to Npower customer services resulted in intermittent and unpredictable billing compared to what they were used to, forcing them to put aside spare capital to deal with unexpected bills. This was administratively difficult for TfL, who, outside of the scheme, have close to daily contact with the customer services of their supplier. The GLA reported that they had limited information on how Npower were administering the project and invoicing. The delayed collection and processing of meter data was raised as an issue and risk on the project governance dashboard and weekly calls were instigated to progress the issue. However, without a dedicated full-time project manager, further proactive management was difficult. This issue was reduced to a level green by Q2, despite continued delay in invoicing.
Npower reported that the bespoke nature of the products that they were offering meant that their participation in the project required disproportionately large amounts of manual administration for limited financial returns. Billing requires half-hourly meters, which cost £[REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] per month to service. For small scale solar PV, Npower reported that the management fee based on the MWh generation was not sufficient to cover the costs of managing the metering during the winter periods. In addition, some meters from Peabody’s generation had to be manually accessed prior to switching metering operators. They had limited access through private properties, which were not included in the project since the SSNOA states access to meters is the responsibility of the GLA to secure. For this reason, the economics of supplying the small-scale generators were challenging for the TPLS.
Npower were reviewing their commercial arrangements at the time and made the decision that this form of manual administration would no longer be supported, and therefore evoked their break clause with six months remaining in the pilot in June 2018.
The GLA then took the appropriate actions to analyse their options. Termination of the SSNOA requires the GLA to contract with a new TPLS to retain their Licence Lite. Re- tendering for a new TPLS was ruled out based on the cost and time required for the procurement process. Instead, the GLA’s Licence Lite project governance team decided to end the programme after the 12-month pilot.
12 Page 79 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
In September 2018, TfL was notified that the GLA would no longer be supplying the energy at the end of the 12-month pilot. TfL then followed procedures to arrange for a new supplier which was scheduled to begin supply in January 2019. However, while TfL should have switched suppliers at the end of the pilot, Npower believed they had a contract with GLA to supply TfL for 9 months after their break clause. TfL reported that this problem was exacerbated by their lack of direct communication with Npower.
13 Page 80 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Page 81 Page
Figure 2 Timeline of Licence Lite Development and Pilot
14
Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
5 Direct Impact of Licence Lite
5.1 Energy Generation and demand The pilot project supported the GLA to buy existing exported distributed energy generation. While there was no additional investment made for the purpose of this project, the pilot bought a total of 2,700 MWh electricity generation that was exported to the grid.
Peabody exported a total of 206 MWh of electricity from solar PV over the pilot project. They began exporting to the GLA in April 2018 when they switched MOP to Npower, and finished in December 2018. The peak generation was during the months of May-July (see Figure 3) due to higher insolation. There were 11 different PV arrays contracted to export excess electricity, although due to metering difficulties, only the electricity from 9 arrays was metered. This was not raised as an issue in the project governance dashboard. It likely had little influence on the energy generation due to the relatively small generation of each PV array compared to the CHP output during the winter but may have reduced wholesale risk for the GLA during the summer months. This is because the CHP generation was drastically reduced, so the difference between total demand and generation increased, exposing the GLA to higher wholesale risk.
SSE exported a total of 2,500 MWh of electricity from CHP over the 12-month pilot, from January 2018 to December 2018. The peak generation was during the winter months since the CHP plant was not operating at full capacity for several months during the summer, which resulted in substantially lower electricity export (see Figure 3).
450
400
350
300
250
200
Export/MWh 150
100
50
- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
SSE MWh Peabody MWh
Figure 3 Peabody and SSE Monthly Export Generation (MWh)
TfL’s two depots consumed a total of 4,200 MWh of electricity over the same period, higher than was predicted in the due diligence prior to the project. TfL imported energy for two of their depots, Northumberland Park had an annual demand of around 1,700 MWh and Northfields around 2,500 MWh. TfL demand peaked during the winter months (see Figure 4).
15 Page 82 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
450 400 350 300 250 200
Input/MWh 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 4 TfL Monthly Demand (MWh)
TfL’s demand was greater than the total generation from SSE and Peabody combined in every month except April (see Figure 5). In the summer and autumn months the deficit that the GLA had to buy off the wholesale market was greatest, with imports exceeding exports by as much as 226 MWh/month in August.
450 Peabody generation 400 begins being sold in the pilot 350
300
250
200
150
Import &Export (MWh) 100
50
- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec SSE Export Peabody Export TfL Import
Figure 5 Comparison of TfL’s monthly demand with total export from SSE and Peabody
5.2 Cost of Developing the Programme Prior to the pilot beginning, the GLA spent several years and budget to develop the programme. The total development costs thereby amounted to £297,000 over the period 2012-2017, with £47,000 associated with the development and mobilisation costs for the pilot:
16 Page 83 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
• In 2012/2013 at the inception when they were developing the project plan and licence, £20,000 was approved for business modelling, markets and legal advice19. • By the end of 2015, when they were procuring the different parties and developing contracts, they had accrued a total of £201,000 for procurement processes, advisory services, and staff time20. • For FY 2016/2017 when they were finalising the business models and contracts, they approved an additional £100,000; £50,000 was for due diligence reporting, and the other £50,000 for market advisory and legal support. In addition, 0.8 FTE at up to £49,00021 was assigned for a part time Chief operating advisor. By September 2017, these figures were revised in MD2157, with £2,000 spent for market advisory from Cornwall energy, £15,000 in legal fees, and £30,000 for a business plan and process set-up totally 47,000 (not including FTE).
5.3 Costs & Revenues of the Pilot Throughout the 12-month trial, the GLA obtained revenues from and made payments to four different stakeholders (see Figure 6 ). This section will look at the actual costs and revenues received by all 5 of the stakeholders during the pilot.
Figure 6 cashflows in the License Lite pilot scheme
19 DD 897 20 MD 1663 21 MD 1663
17 Page 84 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
5.3.1 Payments from TfL to the GLA TfL paid the GLA for electricity used in two depots in accordance with the SA. These payments include:
Table 1 Payment Rates for GLA by TfL [TABLE REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]
The total cost to TfL for electricity supply to the two depots during the pilot was £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]. These costs were highest during the winter months, due to higher electricity demand (see Figure 7). The management and use of system costs were also substantial in these months, likely due to high network fees. The GLA charged TfL for network and use of system (UoS) charges that they paid to Npower who passed these on to the energy system and network operators. VAT was paid to HRMC. The electricity tariff totalled [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE], representing about a third of the costs to TFL, while the pass-through network and system use costs and regulatory costs made up the other two thirds at [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]. The management fees were only £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] for the year22.
[FIGURE REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]
Figure 7 Monthly payments from TfL to the GLA
5.3.2 Payments from GLA to Npower The TPLS, Npower, sold all the generation from the pilot on to the wholesale market and paid these revenues to the GLA. Npower also bought the total amount of electricity demanded by TfL on the wholesale market and invoiced these costs to the GLA, not just the surplus demand beyond that supplied by the generators. For their services and use of their licencing code, Npower charged a management fee per MWh of electricity exported from the generators, and per MWh imported from the wholesale market. (see Table 2 SSNOA Payment rates between GLA and Npower).
22 See SIRF invoices from TFL Jan 2018-Debember 2018
18 Page 85 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Table 2 SSNOA Payment rates between GLA and Npower Charge/Revenue Description Rate
[REDACTED – Management Fee paid by GLA to Npower COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] p/MWh
paid by GLA to Npower to cover Full amount paid by the GLA cost to Npower of importing Import charges (paid to Npower, with electricity demanded by TfL – by GLA to Npower) management fee added on includes wholesale cost and use to this of system charges
paid by Npower to GLA for Full amount paid by Npower Export Revenues revenues from sale of electricity to the GLA, with (paid by Npower to from the generators on the management fee deducted GLA) wholesale market by Npower
Triad Benefits paid by Npower to GLA for SSE Full amount paid to GLA in (passed through triad payments lump sum Npower to GLA)
Over the course of the pilot, the GLA paid Npower a net amount of £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] to cover the difference between the imports, use of system costs and management fees, export revenues, triad benefits, embedded generator benefits and GDUoS benefits. (see Figure 8). While some of these costs were covered by payments from TfL (e.g. use of system costs), some represent a loss the GLA made since the total demand significantly exceeded the total generation. While some of this loss was expected, some was a result of increased wholesale risk from higher net imports. If the generation had been higher than the demand, Npower would have been liable for any imbalance risk rather than the GLA.
Npower also received the triad avoidance payments in February and December, which were paid in full to the GLA.
[FIGURE REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] Figure 8 Monthly Net Payments between GLA and Npower
5.3.3 Payments from GLA to Generators The GLA paid the generators for exported electricity generation in accordance with the PPA. The generators each negotiated a fixed rate during the daytime, and during the night-time exported energy would be purchased based on the System Imbalance Price (SIP). REDACTED, and the GLA paid them the SIP price for any exported electricity produced by the CHP over the night.
The generators also received 100% of the embedded benefits, representing a higher revenue than other suppliers would have provided. These embedded benefits would be passed on from the TPLS (Npower) to the GLA and then paid to the generators. The generators experienced revenue streams in addition to those from sell of electricity to the GLA at the agreed price per kWh:
19 Page 86 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
• Embedded generator benefits: The DNO pays electricity suppliers for avoided costs from decentralised generation at the distribution network level. These benefits, e.g. avoided Balancing Services Use of System charges, transmission and distribution losses, are typically shared by the supplier with the embedded generators. In the Licence Lite pilot, the DNO paid Npower the embedded generation benefits, who passed all the payments to the GLA through the ‘export revenues’. The GLA was able to pass on all these benefits to the generators to provide a substantial source of additional revenue they would not have seen if selling directly on to the wholesale market. • Generator Distribution Use of Systems (GDUoS): depending on whether a generator has a positive or negative effect on the local distribution network, it is either paid or charged by the DNO to the licenced supplier. In this scheme both SSE and Peabody incurred GDUoS benefits, which were paid by the DNO to Npower, and then passed on to the generators via the GLA. • Triad benefits: triad benefits are payments made by the DNO to the electricity supplier for energy generated during the three half hour periods of peak demand in a year. These were paid to Npower and passed on to the GLA for SSE’s generation. The GLA passed on one-third of these to revenues to SSE. • Capacity benefits: these are one-off payments provided to the electricity supplier for supplying the capacity contracted in the Capacity Market. They were paid to Npower for SSE’s generation and passed through the GLA to SSE.
Table 3 PPA Payment by GLA to SSE [TABLE REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]
The GLA paid SSE a total of £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] over the course of the 12 months, £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] of which was paid as the electricity tariff, with the remaining paid for the triad, embedded generator and capacity benefits. This was below the £155,000 allocated operational expenditure for SSE generation in MD 2157. The revenues generated were the highest during February and December, when they received both Triad benefits and high revenues for increased generation (See Error! Reference source not found..
Figure 9 Monthly payments from GLA to SSE [FIGURE REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]
Peabody did not receive any triad or capacity market benefits because PV is not dispatchable.
Table 4 Payment Rates for Peabody by GLA Charge Description Rate Time
[REDACTED – 0630 – charged by the COMMERCIALLY Electricity Tariff 2230 generators to the GLA SENSITIVE] p/kWh for exported electricity Elexon System Imbalance 2230 – Price 0630 paid to the generators Embedded by the GLA (via DNO 100% Benefits and Npower)
20 Page 87 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
GLA paid Peabody a total of £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] over the 9- month period Peabody were generating for the scheme, of which £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] was paid as the electricity tariff and the remaining £ [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] paid for the embedded benefits. The revenues were highest during the summer months when generation was the highest, and the embedded generation benefits were all paid in the last two months of the trial (see Figure 10).
[FIGURE REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]
Figure 10 Peabody Monthly Revenues (£)
5.3.4 Total cost to the GLA The GLA was paid by TfL to supply their electricity. Some of these payments were used to pay the generators for their generation, some were used to pay for the exported electricity demand to be bought off the wholesale market, and some was used to pay for Npower for their electricity supply services. On top of these costs, the GLA also had to pay the regulatory requirements from being a Licence Lite Supplier, however these costs were passed through to TfL:
• Ofgem FIT levelisation: these are fees paid by suppliers to Ofgem depending on the degree to which they supply feed-in-tariffs. • Ofgem Renewable Obligation: these are fees paid by suppliers that do not source a sufficiently high proportion of their electricity from renewable sources. Since SSE’s CHP generation was not renewable, this was a significant cost. • HMRC Climate Change Levy: an environmental tax on energy production and use based on the level of carbon.
Table 5 Actual vs. Predicted Costs and Revenues for the GLA Costs MD2157 DD2344 Actual
Predevelopment costs -£47,000 -£47,000 -£47,000
Operational Income from supplying TfL +£336,000 +£378,281 +£444,118
Operational Income from Npower selling - +£220,437 +£214,443 SSE and Peabody Generation Export
Operational Expenditure from GLA buying -£171,000 -£181,893 -£180,409 SSE and Peabody generation
Operational Expenditure from Npower -£44,000 -£396,548 -£396,404 buying TfL Import + management fees
Regulatory & compliance costs -£136,000 -£144,599 -£144,599
FTE + Operational services -£100,000 -£100,000 -£100,000
Total -£162,000 -£271,322 -209,851
21 Page 88 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Table 5 compares the predicted costs approved by the Mayor to those updated at the end of the project and the actual costs. When the pilot was approved, the GLA was expected to make a loss due to the small scale of the pilot and low prices paid by TfL. The loss was approved in MD 2157 and predicted to be £95,000 and the total project costs were forecast to be £162,000 including FTE and the development costs for the pilot.
At the end of the project, DD 2344 requested additional funding to cover unexpected costs23. It acknowledges that the costs were higher than expected due to higher import costs than predicted as well as substantially higher regulatory costs than predicted. The increased costs were difficult to foresee due to the novel nature of the scheme. At this point, an additional £125,000 was set aside to cover additional costs and contingency, totalling £287,000 in project budget. The final invoices for October-December had not yet been received from Npower, resulting in the estimated costs for these three months.
In the end, the GLA had an actual operational income of around £659,000 and an operational expenditure of around £721,000 (see Figure 11). Accounting for the £20,000 for FTE, £80,000 for operational services and £47,000 for development costs, the pilot programme ended up costing the GLA £210,000.
[FIGURE REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE]
Figure 11 Monthly costs and revenues to the GLA during the Licence Lite pilot
5.4 Additional Benefits The direct revenues and costs received during the pilot must be compared to the costs and benefits normally incurred outside of the pilot to determine the total direct benefits of the scheme. Table 5 Compares the payments made during the pilot by each of the actors to the ‘business as usual’ counterfactual to determine what the additional costs or benefits were of the pilot. It shows that the pilot successfully achieved the goals of providing increased revenues for the decentralised generators during the pilot. The GLA made a loss as was predicted. While the wholesale and imbalance risk was be shared between the GLA and Npower, the GLA ended up bearing higher wholesale import costs while Npower may have has some higher administration costs.
Table 6 Additional direct benefits from pilot based on counterfactual Additional Cost/ Direct payments Benefit Actor Business as Usual from Pilot compared to BAU
GLA paid The GLA would not have normally £209,000 for supplied this electricity outside of GLA electricity, service -£209,000 the pilot, so all costs are and regulatory additional. fees
23 DD2344, October 2018
22 Page 89 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
TfL normally buys electricity on TFL paid £ the forward spot market so a [REDACTED – direct counterfactual cannot be Small (+/- TfL COMMERCIALLY determined, however the fixed £10,000) SENSITIVE] for price for electricity negotiated their electricity likely represented a similar overall cost to TfL.
While these were new clients and a potential new source of Npower was paid revenue, Npower’s internal costs £211,000 for of administering the scheme were Npower energy and Negligible not disclosed. Npower revealed services; costs that it is likely the management unknown fees just covered the cost of supplying the service.
SSE was not interviewed, so the counterfactual is unknown. If SSE SSE was paid £ had sold their generation at the [REDACTED – half-hourly wholesale price on to COMMERCIALLY SSE the wholesale market, their SENSITIVE] for revenues would have been c. At least +£15,000 their electricity £149,000; however, it is unlikely generation they would have been able to receive such a high price.
According to the interview with Peabody, the exported generation Peabody was in this pilot would normally have paid £ been fed back into the grid for no [REDACTED – [REDACTED – additional revenue. If Peabody Peabody COMMERCIALLY COMMERCIALLY had been able to sell their SENSITIVE] for SENSITIVE] generation at the half-hourly their electricity wholesale price, they would have generation received [roughly the same amount].
The Licence Lite scheme was intended to be scaled and replicated to decrease emissions and increase investment and jobs. During the pilot, no additional infrastructure was built, and the electricity would have been generated with or without the pilot. Therefore, it can be assumed that no additional low carbon or emission electricity was generated, so there were no CO2 or NOx savings or costs. Stakeholder interviews also did not identify any new jobs created for this pilot as this was not the purpose of the pilot.
5.5 Market and Policy Developments Over the period of the pilot and scheme, there were also several changes in the market and policy space that affected the outcome of the project.
First, when the programme was originally conceived in 2012, the former Mayor’s policy goal had been to increase decentralised energy in London. The carbon emissions from the grid
23 Page 90 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA were significantly higher than today, and thus CHP was a target technology as it met decarbonisation and decentralisation policy objectives. The programme and commercial arrangements were structured around the assumption that it would be supporting CHP generation.
During the development of the programme, the grid began to rapidly decarbonise, and the policy objectives switched to focus on zero carbon generation technologies. This market and policy change had significant detriment on the project. The procurement process had already undergone the initial OJEU procurement for generators and focused on CHP generation with some smaller PV generation. The procurement framework was flexible enough to allow PV generation to be contracted in the subsequent ‘mini-competition’. However, the scheme was not as well suited to small scale PV generation, resulting in higher administrative costs and metering problems. In addition, by the time the pilot finished in December 2018, the grid carbon factor had significantly reduced, and therefore, for much of the year, the CHP generation was more carbon intensive than the grid average electricity. This resulted in higher regulatory costs as well as reduced alignment with political objectives.
If the programme had a dedicated market analyst, they may have raised the decarbonising grid emissions as a risk, however 2017 was a period of unprecedented decarbonisation of the electricity grid. There was a record drop in coal use in 2017 and renewable generation 26% higher in Q1 of 2017 than in Q1 2016. This resulted in a 15% decrease in the electricity emissions factor in 2017/201824. Since the procurement process began long before the grid decarbonisation, it would have been difficult to have foreseen these changes during procurement. The 2017 year-end statistic would have been released after the pilot began, at which point the CHP generation was critical to the delivery of the pilot.
During the pilot, there were also changes in the market and contracted prices paid that impacted the outcomes. The exported volumes were largest in the first half of 2018, while the import volumes and wholesale prices were highest in the second half of 2018. This contributed to a greater loss made by the GLA (see section 3.2). The delay in the pilot beginning also resulted in the GLA receiving the lower contracted rate for the supply of TfL energy for FY 2018/19 for a longer period, resulting in lower revenues than expected. These market changes would have been hard to predict and may have had less impact over time if the project continued and new rates were negotiated.
24 Carbon Credentials (2017) CRC electricity emissions factor falls by 15%
24 Page 91 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
6 Indirect Impact of the Project
6.1 5-year programme scenario The direct impacts of the project were limited due to the short duration of the 12-month pilot. However, the pilot illustrated a new commercial and regulatory framework that enabled the GLA to buy exported generation from two generators and sell to one large public sector consumer.
In the pilot, the rate TfL paid the GLA for their electricity supply tariff was below the rate that GLA was paying the generators for their exported energy ([REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] p/kWh). As a result, the GLA made a loss for each kWh transferred from generator to consumer, even without the additional costs associated with Npower exporting/importing all the electricity produced/demanded to/from the wholesale market. The low rate TfL was paying was agreed in MD 2157 prior to the project with the intention that the GLA would make a loss in the pilot as a ‘proof of concept’, and then be able to implement a viable business model as part of a 5-year extension of the programme.
If the scheme had been extended to additional generators and consumers:
1. Further customers, smaller than TfL – particularly microconsumers such as SMEs - would be willing to pay more for their electricity, since they pay higher retail prices in their counterfactual. This would increase revenues from the consumer. 2. Achieving a better match between generator supply and consumer demand, though careful selection of additional generators, would reduce the vulnerability of the GLA to wholesale market fluctuations by ensuring that import and export volumes are approximately equal within any given half hour period.
Here, we present an illustrative scenario for how, if the present scheme were extended, the revenue streams could change. Note that this is not a prediction, rather a description of one possible future scenario.
Table 7 illustrative scenario of the potential impact if the scheme had continued for 5 years
Assumed Generation/ Description Justification Addition Demand
Peabody, SSE & 27,100 MWh Continue existing TfL generation/ Contracts had option to demand, 14,900 supply/generation demand continue extend for 5 years MWh CHP, as before 1,990 MWh PV Additional generation PV, added in Similar size to supports policy goals but 670 MWh second year Peabody create large generation administration costs Decentralised GLA project manager was Modelled off energy generator, in discussion with an 23,800 MWh London Biogas added in third anaerobic digester facility generation Facility year during the pilot. Two new Each with similar This is purely illustrative. 18,800 MWh consumers added consumption to the Future consumers would demand in third year pair of TfL depots, need to pay higher prices
25 Page 92 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
but paying a rate than TfL. 20% higher [REDACTED – paying consumers COMMERCIALLY predicted for 5-year SENSITIVE] per extension in original cent higher project due diligence.
In the illustrative example, the generation over the 5-year programme could have been 40.6 GWh, 25.7 of which could have been zero-carbon generation from solar PV or other decentralised energy generation (see Figure 12).
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
Electricity Generation/demand Generation/demand Electricity (MWh) -
Jul-18 Jul-19 Jul-20 Jul-21 Jul-22
Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21 Jan-22
Oct-18 Oct-19 Oct-20 Oct-21 Oct-22
Apr-18 Apr-19 Apr-20 Apr-21 Apr-22
CHP Generation PV Generation Additional Generation Consumption
Figure 12 Illustrative example 5-year Licence Lite Programme generation and demand (MWh)
The revenues for the illustrative example will depend on the rates negotiated. If the new consumer is added paying [REDACTED – COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE] % higher rates than TfL, this example could result in positive net costs over the 5-year programme of £545,000. However, the programme would likely be making a loss until the beginning of year 3 when the new consumer begins paying the higher price. In this model, the maximum loss was £249,700 at the end of year two, and the example turns positive total returns by the end of 2020 (See Figure 13).
26 Page 93 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
100,000.00
80,000.00
60,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
-
(20,000.00)
Jul-20 Jul-22 Jul-18 Jul-19 Jul-21
Jan-18 Jan-19 Jan-20 Jan-21 Jan-22
Oct-18 Oct-19 Oct-20 Oct-21 Oct-22
Apr-18 Apr-19 Apr-20 Apr-21 Apr-22 (40,000.00)
(60,000.00) Costs Costs andRevenues to(£) GLA (80,000.00)
(100,000.00) Generator Payments (from GLA to Generators) Import Costs to GLA
Consumer Revenues (from Consumers to GLA) Export Revenues (From Npower to GLA)
Net Revenues (to GLA)
Figure 13 Projected monthly costs and revenues for the GLA for 5-year programme
It is possible that the increased revenues for all stakeholders shown in the last two years this illustrative example could have supported additional investment in decentralised generation beyond the 5-year programme. If additional PV or other decentralised energy generation were built as a result of this model in the longer term, it could result in CO2 and NOx savings from new generation compared to the grid electricity carbon emissions at that time.
6.2 Market & Policy Impacts Across the period of the Licence Lite programme development, the market and policy were shifting; however, the Licence Lite program helped deliver on a new market framework with benefits to small scale decentralised generators.
It is still difficult for small scale decentralised energy generators to access the wholesale market. Small generators are able to enter into PPAs if they are large enough or contract with aggregators who will take a cut out of their profit margins from the wholesale revenues. Thus, the commercial model demonstrated in the scheme, which offers a route to higher revenues for smaller decentralised energy providers, could still have a significant positive impact on the market if a commercial model is proven that is viable for all parties.
The project was originally intended to help deliver the former Mayor’s target of 25% of London’s energy supplied by decentralised sources by 2025. This policy was originally targeted at CHP and district heating. The pilot provided additional revenues to SSE for their exported electricity generation from their CHP plant. If the Licence Lite model were continued or replicated, it is possible that the Licence Lite model could have provided CHP generators revenues that would support the business case for more CHP investment if this were still a policy objective.
27 Page 94 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
When the current mayor ran in 2016, his manifesto commitment pledged London to be zero carbon by 205025. At this point, the Licence Lite framework had been provisionally granted and the electricity generator framework had already been procured. Thus, when the current mayor was elected shortly before the pilot began, the policy target shifted away from supporting CHP and toward an aim of generating 15% of London’s energy from local, renewable sources by 2030. The Mayor’s subsequent Solar Action Plan26 was finalised mid- way through the pilot with a target of 1 GW solar energy generation by 2030 and 2 GW by 2050.
While not the original intent of the project, the pilot added Peabody’s generation into the pilot in April 2018, providing a return on investment for PV generation that otherwise would have received no additional revenues. The commercial model did not stack up for the TPLS to supply to small solar PV in the pilot due to high administrative costs. It is still a possibility that in the future, elements of the Licence Lite model may be able to support PV generation that is easy to access and larger in scale in the future. However, future PV revenues are also highly dependent on changing policy incentives and market dynamics as well as alternative options such as aggregating to secure higher value PPAs, and thus the impacts on the market for PV generators is uncertain.
The original intent by Ofgem for introducing Licence Lite was to reduce barriers to entry for small suppliers. The limited number of applicants for Licence Lite models from Ofgem proved the regulatory framework was significantly complex for the market. By the GLA trialling an innovative market approach, they were supporting market development and delivering one of BEIS’s Smart Energy System flexibility action plans. While the market has shifted focus from small scale generators to provision of flexibility and services to the grid27, the GLA supported initial development of the regulatory framework for later Licence Lite suppliers. The learnings from Licence Lite can be used to inform regulators of existing institutional barriers to developing new market mechanisms e.g. for P2P models.
6.3 Future Applications
Viable Commercial Models The pilot highlighted several limitations of the GLA’s commercial model. There are several ways these could be potentially addressed for Licence Lite to support future commercial models that have positive revenues for all parties in the future, each with additional considerations that would need to be addressed before they would be viable:
1. Switching to a larger number of higher paying consumers 2. Expanding to additional medium scale generators 3. Replication by different Licence Lite suppliers e.g. generators 4. Replicating by specialised TPLS
In order to be simultaneously viable for the Licence Lite supplier, the consumers and the generators, the consumers must pay a significantly higher price than TfL was paying for their electricity consumed. Smaller consumers, such as SMEs, typically pay a retail price of 13-
25 Solar action Plan for London, June 2018, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/solar_action_plan.pdf 26 London Environment Strategy, May 2018, https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/s70409/Appendix%202%20Draft%20London%20 Environment%20Strategy.pdf 27 Cornwall Energy, 24 August 2017, First ever Licence Lite grant shows how far the market has come, https://www.cornwall-insight.com/newsroom/all-news/first-ever-licence-lite- grant-shows-how-far-the-market-has-come
28 Page 95 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
16 p/kWh28. However, in order to supply a ‘micro’ consumer, with annual consumption below 100,000 kWh, the Licence Lite supplier must currently adhere to the consumer protection requirements detailed in article 7 of the Standard Electricity Supply License, likely to entail significant administrative costs. A cost-benefit analysis would have to be conducted to determine the costs to meet consumer protection requirements versus the additional revenues that could be obtained from additional consumers. In practice, the consumer protection requirements may create prohibitive barriers to entry for potential new small-scale suppliers unless scaled up to multiple consumers.
As seen in section Error! Reference source not found., the pilot could be expanded to m ore generators. Smaller scale generators will have more commercial incentive to contract with a Licence Lite supplier due to their limited potential revenues and uncertain additional policy incentives. To do so, the higher costs of metering and administration seen in the pilot for Npower must be addressed. Peabody also noted that the trial revealed an additional cost to generators for switching the meter operating providers (MOP). While the SSNOA does not require the TPLS to become the MOP, the Licence Lite supplier must enter into an additional agreement with the MOP for provision of services. The cost to do so must be investigated further along with the costs of metering/administering smaller generation to determine the commercial viability of these options. Smart meters may reduce some costs of gathering generation data from small scale generators.
The supplier must also increase their revenues for the commercial model to be viable. If the supplier were also a generator selling their own generation, then they would see all the export and embedded generation revenues. They would still have to pay the TPLS the fixed management fee and excess import charges, as well as regulatory and operational costs. This commercial model may be viable if the generation exceeded or met demand, and there were significant consumer revenues to cover the regulatory and use of system fees Alternatively, if a supplier retained a larger proportion of the embedded generation benefits it may also have supported their business case. New suppliers would require minimal costs for contracting with the TPLS and consumers.
Npower stated the costs of administering bespoke services for the Licence Lite model was not sufficiently economical in the pilot. In addition, Ofgem determined that all suppliers may be required to offer TPLS services. If so, the metering or management fee could be increased, however this would increase the barriers for Licence Lite suppliers. However, Npower suggested the costs to the TPLS may be reduced with scale and standardisation of their products used. The small potential profit margins may be enough to attract small suppliers that could specialise in offering these services.
Alternative Applications Several local authorities are using a white label supplier to access fairer rates for consumers and generators. In a white-label supplier model, the non-licenced supplier contracts with a licenced supplier like in LL. The non-licenced company provides the branding and direction over the white-label supplier and the licenced supplier provides the necessary energy services, regulatory and code obligations. The white-label supplier model has been proven commercially; however, it provides an opportunity for the third-party supplier to have more control over the supply of electricity and the margins and is typically supplying domestic consumers. If a commercially viable Licence Lite model was developed, it could offer an alternative to this business model for non-domestic consumers.
28 https://www.businesselectricityprices.org.uk/cost-per-kwh/
29 Page 96 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
Peer-to-peer (P2P) models aim to buy and sell generation directly between local consumers. While local energy markets are predicted to play a big role in the future, they are difficult to deliver in the current trading arrangements. Several trials are underway using new market architectures such as a microgrids, block-chain trading, and community energy within housing estates. These trials have required permission from Ofgem as households are not able to buy electricity from other consumers29. Licence Lite was a step towards P2P, however VAT obligations required the TPLS to buy and sell all electricity generated and consumed on the wholesale market, completely blocking the ability of the Licence Lite framework to be used to buy and sell directly between a generator and consumer. If these VAT barriers could be investigated further, Licence Lite may be one option to enable suppliers to buy and sell between local consumers. However, matching supply and demand may be difficult, especially as solar generation peaks in the summer months while consumption peaks in the winter months. Commercial models involving PV generation with storage and smart charging EVs may be able to bridge this gap.
7 Conclusions
7.1 Key achievements The development of the Licence Lite framework and programme also represented several key achievements for the GLA.
The GLA successfully identified a market failure that was impeding the delivery of London’s policy aimed at increasing decentralised generation. The GLA along with Ofgem developed an idea for an alternative route to market and the GLA followed through with developing this route despite repeated difficulties. The fact that the GLA was willing to share the financial risk and had the expertise to deliver the project, allowed it to successfully be completed when another organisation might not have.
The GLA also successfully developed an innovative regulatory framework with the help of Ofgem. It took five years to develop this framework, reflecting the significant complexity of the current regulation and the institutional barriers that existed to developing new routes to market. The GLA was the first public body to apply for a LL, and the fact that only two other applications have been successful is a testament to the effectiveness of the legal expertise and project management deployed by the GLA throughout the process.
The GLA developed novel and innovative procurement frameworks and contractual agreements. While these took longer to develop than initially predicted, they were able to highlight the challenges in coordinating the needs of many actors, matching generation and demand needs, offering bespoke energy services, and meeting the obligations of a Licence Lite supplier. The frameworks can also be picked-up by the next organisation and adapted for future use due to their public access and inclusion of common language. Doing this could further lower the barrier to entry for future suppliers.
The GLA also demonstrated a commercial model using a Licence Lite supplier over the 12- month project. The learnings on the delivery and commercial issues can be used to support future business models where a similar licensing structure could be applied with a mutually beneficial pricing structure.
29 Financial Times, UK trials peer-to-peer energy trading
30 Page 97 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA
7.2 Lessons Learned The are several lessons to be learnt from the Licence Lite programme.
Regulation First, involvement in novel energy market regulation and development is complex and time consuming, and likely to result in long and uncertain timeframes. The GLA began discussions with Ofgem in 2009 on the Licence Lite framework and was not granted the final licence until 2017. From the official beginning of the programme in 2012 until the pilot began in 2018, 5 years passed and £350,000 were spent.
It was originally intended that the scheme would be similar to a Peer-to-Peer model: the License Lite supplier would buy electricity from the generator and sell it on to the consumer; the Third Party Licensed Supplier would only sell excess generation to the wholesale market, and buy top up electricity from the wholesale market when generation fell short of demand. However, as a result of transparency requirements for VAT accounting, it was necessary for Npower to instead export all of the electricity generated on to the wholesale market and import all of the electricity demanded by the consumers from the wholesale market. The model therefore resembled an arrangement where the generators and consumers interact separately with the wholesale market rather than directly with each other. As a result of this, additional use of system charges were incurred on the import which would otherwise have been avoided. These use of system charges outweighed the effect of the embedded generator benefits received by the Licence Lite supplier on the export charges, so the advantages of directly supplying from generator to consumer were not received. Should this issue be resolved, sharing of embedded generator benefits between Licence Lite supplier and generator may be necessary to strengthen the business case from the former’s point of view.
It was also intended that the commercial model would be supplying CHP generation which was better suited to match demand than the small PV generation. The business model was reviewed after the regulatory framework was developed and approved by MD on the assumption that initial losses would be made up when it was scaled up and offered to larger consumers30. However, this was not proven as the pilot was not extended. Thus, the learnings from the pilot’s commercial business model would need to be updated to be commercially viable to all parties in future if it were to be scaled.
The scheme functioned differently from intended as a result of the complexity and novel nature of the regulatory changes. When the VAT issues and policy changes were identified, the GLA could have taken a step back to determine if a new commercial model could be more viable or if the programme should not go forward. Instead, a new commercial arrangement was developed to go forward with the Licence Lite regulatory framework. However, the pilot showed that the commercial arrangement is critical to the success of the business model; and in the future GLA should consider this first when developing new regulatory ‘asks’. In addition, after major changes a risk analysis could determine if new commercial models still achieve the primary policy objectives, and if not, the project governance board could consider if it is still worth moving forward.
Procurement & Contracting Public bodies such as the GLA are bound by lengthy procurement procedures and governance processes e.g. OJEU Procurement processes. These procurement processes
30 MD2157
31 Page 98 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA complicated the Licence Lite scheme, e.g. when the generators and consumers contracts all had to align for the start of the project. During this time, the market had decarbonised substantially, shifting the objectives of the GLA, as well as the markets for electricity suppliers and decentralised generators. The length of the GLA’s procurement process meant that nearly two years passed from initial tendering to commencing the pilot, at which time Npower had shifted their strategic focus. Strategic changes may have been able to be mitigated in the procurement process by increasing communication of project dates and KPIs. The length of the procurement process also made procurement of an alternative TPLS impractical when Npower announced contract termination. Some stakeholders also identified that a public sector consumer and supplier may result in too lengthy of procurement process for future Licence Lite models if the aim is to reduce the barriers to entry for suppliers and costs for generators.
The relationships with the TPLS are critical to the Licence Lite scheme. Ofgem’s Licence Lite approval is dependent on contracting with a TPLS, and delays in developing the SSNOA with Npower resulted in delays for approval of the GLA Licence Lite application and start of the pilot. During the pilot, the GLA was dependent on Npower to deliver the Market Interface Services and dependent on communication with them to respond to consumer and generator queries. Establishing timeframes for billing and metering queries may support future contractual arrangements and should be raised as a key task for the project manager. When Npower enacted the break-clause in the contract, the GLA could not afford the time or cost to procure a new TPLS, and thus the pilot was terminated despite continued interest from generators. Developing a criterion for the break-clause and ensuring the Market Interface Services procurement process considers the TPLS long-term business interests and products may help mitigate this in the future.
Delivery & Administration The pilot also identified administrative barriers to delivering the Licence Lite arrangements from the points of view of the consumer and generator. The metering arrangements proved difficult throughout the project. While the contracts required the TPLS to be the meter operating provider (MOP) unless otherwise pre-arranged, the generators had not put in place measures to switch MOPs. This resulted in manual meter reading work arounds and a delayed start of Peabody in the project. Ongoing meter access issues also resulted in delayed billing. In the future, MOP contractual arrangements and meter accessibility could be considered prior to contracting and raised prior to contracts initialising.
Communication issues also posed difficulties during the pilot from an absence of a contractual relationship between the consumer or generators and Npower. This resulted in invoicing difficulties and later a lack of visibility into the duration of Npower’s supply arrangements to TfL. In addition, Multiple stakeholders reported communication issues between parties, and that it would have been beneficial if the stakeholders had an improved understanding of the KPIs from the point of view of the other stakeholders. These could be mitigated by allowing some level of communication for queries between the consumer and TPLS as part of the contractual arrangements, which was not the case in the GLA model.
Commercial viability Several lessons were learnt regarding the commercial model and who it could be replicated by in the future. First, it exposes the supplier to risk in the wholesale market with fixed rates over long periods of time and the need to buy and sell all generation and demand on the wholesale market, incurring additional use of system costs. This may result in too great a risk for small suppliers such as generators. Second, the management fee for the TPLS may not adequately reflect the increased cost of providing bespoke support for new commercial
32 Page 99 Licence Lite Evaluation Report for the GLA arrangements. The costs may be reduced if contracting with larger generation or if the supplier specialised in these products. Finally, the Licence Lite supplier is subject to these potential increased costs as well as additional regulatory and operational costs, and the rates paid by TfL were not sufficiently high to cover these costs.
Future commercial viability requires better match between generation and supply, and a selection of smaller, higher paying consumers. In this pilot, short falls in generation in the latter half of 2018 coincided with steep wholesale price rises to result in the GLA making a more loss than expected31 from the cost of importing top up electricity supply. As an exceptionally large source of demand, TfL pays a low price for electricity. In order for the scheme to be simultaneously viable for the consumer, Licence Lite supplier and generators, smaller consumers are needed, who pay higher prices for electricity. However, complex consumer protection administration is required by the Licence Lite supplier when supplying small consumers, and this creates large barriers to entry to this section of the market. Removal of these barriers to entry through modification of the consumer protection obligations is necessary if this or similar schemes are to be realised with small consumers.
Role for GLA The Licence Lite pilot revealed the benefit of highlighting national market failures and regulatory barriers and the role for the GLA in considering potential measures to address them. While the Licence Lite model may have only niche applications, the GLA could apply the learnings from Licence Lite to inform their delivery of the solar and decentralised energy generation targets. The GLA may have to support the business case for decentralised generation by piloting alternative commercial models e.g. pairing storage with solar PV to have excess generation avoid import retail costs which are significantly higher than wholesale costs.
The GLA will also continue developing their role as an enabler and supplier of electricity through the Energy for Londoners programme. Future programmes may need to consider ensuring adequate communication between consumers and the contracted licenced energy supplier through additional contractual clauses, mitigating risks of the third-party supplier breaking their contract and ensuring all parties are aware of the objectives and progress. If the Energy for London supply company enters into new regulatory commercial arrangements, risk analysis should incorporate additional consideration on the complexity of the regulatory environment and the uncertainty of market development.
31 £209,00 actual loss and £95,000 predicted loss approved in MD 2157 prior to pilot
33 Page 100 Appendix 2
20th March 2020
Dear Sir/Madam,
CORONAVIRUS: THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY RESPONSE
Coronavirus is causing concern across the country for everyone, both personally and professionally. I want to let you know about the steps the Environment Agency is taking at this difficult time.
Our key priorities are to protect the health, safety and well-being of our own staff, the public and the businesses and partners we work with; to prevent loss of life and serious harm to the environment; and to keep our critical operations running.
We are doing this by following the Government guidelines on reducing the risk of Coronavirus; by seeking to act quickly, decisively and proportionately; and by responding flexibly as the situation develops.
We have put in place arrangements to ensure that as far as possible we can:
Continue to respond effectively in the event of a major flood, pollution or other incident; Carry out our regulatory activities in a safe, secure and effective way; Keep our operational sites, such as flood barriers, up and running; Support businesses who face their own operational difficulties; Sustain our cooperation with the emergency services, local authorities and other partners, including in the Local Resilience Forums which are helping manage the current crisis.
In line with government advice most of our teams are now working from home and making use of virtual meetings where possible, and working in shift or staggered work patterns to minimise social contact where this isn’t. Where we have staff out on the ground, for example inspecting assets we operate or other parties’ sites which we regulate, they will be adhering to the latest advice from Public Health England.
While we will aim to provide the best possible service that we can, you will understand that in current circumstances we will not be able to operate as normal. We will need to stop or slow some of our normal activities in order to focus on the most important and urgent.
We are already receiving inquiries from our customers and partners about the type of service we will be able to provide for the foreseeable future. We will be engaging with specific partners and sectors in greater detail in the coming days. Please let us
Page 101 know if you have or foresee any issues in relation to your own activities due to the spread of Covid-19 that may affect how we currently work together.
This is a fast-moving and challenging situation. But by working together we are confident we can find the solutions we need to meet those challenges.
Yours sincerely
Sir James Bevan Chief Executive
Page 102 Appendix 3
From: John Stewart Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 3:54 pm To: Subject: HACAN East Update June 2020
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
I hope you are well and safe.
London City Airport Consultative Committee took place yesterday.
We heard the latest news about developmenmts.
The review of the controversial concentrated flightpaths has been paused. The Civil Aviation Authority is expected to say when the review will resume. You'll recall that the airport was reviewing its flight paths. A public consultation had been planned for early 2021. That will now be put back. All airports in London and the SE have been reviweing their flight paths. The work is being coordinated by air traffic control under guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority. It will be a major priority of both HACAN East and our sister organisation HACAN to put pressure on the relevant authorities to get this back on track. Without change to the concentrated flight paths, people are left without hope.
The airport's Master Plan has been put on hold. You'll recall that just before lockdown London City announced that it would drop the proposals that were in its draft Master Plan to end the 24 hour weekend break (no planes between 12.30pm Saturday - 12.30pm Sunday) and those to bring in more early morning and late evening flights. What remained was the proposal to lift the annual cap from 111,000 to 151,000. London City CEO Robert Sinclair told the consultative committe that proposal will be considered in due course when it is clearer how demand is picking up.
London City is starting flights this Sunday with a flight to the Isle of Man. Robert Sinclair said that flight numbers could be back up to 50% of normal by the end of September but made clear there was still a lot of uncertainty about this.
John Stewart Chair HACAN East
If you want to be removed from this list, just drop me an email.
Page 103 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 104 Appendix 4
Caroline Russell AM Date: 2 July 2020 Chair, Environment Committee
City Hall The Queen’s Walk London, SE1 2AA
(By e-mail only: [email protected])
Dear Caroline,
UPDATED SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENT
Thank you for inviting me to the Environment Committee meeting on 20 July 2020. I am aware the Committee has had regular briefings on the impacts of the pandemic since the start of lockdown. However, I thought it would be helpful to provide you with a summary on how various Mayoral environmental programmes have progressed during the COVID-19 response.
Please find the additional information in annex 1 of this letter. I hope you find this useful. If you have any questions please contact my Assistant, Carl Ridgers on 020 7983 5897 or [email protected], who will be able to commission a response.
Yours sincerely,
Shirley Rodrigues Deputy Mayor for Environment & Energy
City Hall, London, SE1 2AA - london.gov.uk - [email protected] - 020 7983 4000 Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 106 Annex 1 - update on environmental programmes during COVID-19 response
Air Quality • To help London’s critical workers get to work and for essential deliveries to take place, the Mayor asked Transport for London to temporarily suspend the Congestion Charge, Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) and Low Emission Zone (LEZ) from Monday 23 March until Monday 18 May. • The Mayor confirmed temporary changes to the Congestion Charge to support the transformation of London’s streets to enable more walking and cycling. From 22 June the Congestion Charge increased to £15 and its hours of operation are 7am to 10pm, seven days a week. Data available at the time of the Mayor’s decision showed that even with the Congestion Charge back in place and many people still working from home, there were as many cars in the zone as before the lockdown began. These changes are expected to reduce journeys within the Congestion Charge Zone by a third and would significantly reduce air pollution in central London compared to pre-COVID-19 levels and help tackle the climate emergency. • On 9 April TfL announced that enforcement of the tightened Low Emission Zone (LEZ) and the HGV Safety Permit Scheme, which includes the Direct Vision Standard (DVS), were deferred by four months from 26 October 2020 to late February 2021. This will be reviewed in September and could be extended further. • On 15 June the Mayor announced a six-month exemption period from the new Non Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Low Emission Zone standards, to be introduced on 1 September 2020. This will run from September 2020 until the end of February 2021. Existing standards, in place since 2015, will continue to apply. The coronavirus pandemic has had an impact on supply chains, making it more difficult for construction companies to prepare their machinery for the new standards. • The GLA notified the London boroughs that the deadline for submitting statutory air quality reports by 31 May was to be maintained, but with added flexibility and granting extensions if needed. The Cleaner Air Borough (CAB) application process has been delayed until next year. The CAB was delayed to reduce resource pressure on boroughs to enable them to focus on the response to the pandemic. • Business as usual works have continued on the majority of the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund (MAQF) projects, including for Low Emission Neighbourhoods. Boroughs have paused major new contracts or work pending confirmation of funding following the TfL financial agreement with the Government. • Changes to travel behaviour during the lockdown impacting traffic levels generally resulted in improvements to air quality. However, since lockdown there have been three particulate matter pollution episodes partly caused by pollution brought in from sources external to London such as agricultural emissions as well as domestic wood-burning, garden waste- burning and BBQs in London. There has also been one Ozone pollution episode caused by local and imported air pollutants reacting during the strong sunshine in June. A more detailed report setting out changes in air pollution concentrations from 2016 to 2019 and during lockdown will be provided to the Environment Committee on 6 July.
Page 107 Energy and Climate Change • Following the Mayor’s call to stop non-essential, non-safety work at the start of the pandemic, we asked all Energy for Londoners programme delivery partners to stop on-site work. This excluded our Warmer Homes programme when there were broken heating systems and the household wasn’t in self-isolation. Warmer Homes Advice Service continued to operate with ‘virtual’ home assessments. During these virtual home energy visits extensive telephone consultations are carried out, using residents’ camera phones were possible, and small energy efficiency measures are posted out with their installation explained during the consultation. • Since then, following an announcement on 10 May, the Government relaxed work restrictions, including for construction and trades. GLA reviewed the impact for each of the Mayor’s energy programmes and resumed most delivery activity but with strict safety guidelines and PPE in place. • London Power has continued to operate throughout the pandemic with minimal noticeable change to our customers. We plan to publish customer numbers quarterly, to balance protecting the commercial position of London Power against our desire to be as transparent as possible. The first full quarter’s data will be published on week commencing 27 July 2020. This timeline follows the reporting process laid out in the contract with Octopus including allowing sufficient time to analyse and quality assure the data before publication. • Octopus Energy, the provider of London Power, have signed up to the government charter to support vulnerable customers through COVID-19. Measures have been implemented to support customers who are financially affected, including not starting debt collection for any customers who informed us that they needed help suspending disconnection of credit meters. • COP 26 due to be held in November in Glasgow has been postponed to 1-12 November 2021. London Climate Action week is taking place virtually over two weeks. The first (1-3 July) focusing on climate and the green recovery, the second week (Nov 2020) focusing on building momentum to COP 26. The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor took part in several events scheduled during the summer Climate Action Week. The Mayor gave his first keynote address since lockdown at the Centre for London’s webinar ‘London green recovery’, where he reaffirmed his commitment to net zero by 2030 and emphasised the importance of the climate and social justice being tackled together through the recovery. • The Mayor through C40 has continued to drive work on the global collaboration by cities on the COVID-19 response and the Green Recovery. On May 7 the Mayor signed up to C40’s principles1 for recovery in cities which focuses on economic recovery that jointly tackles the climate crisis. The GLA continues to share thinking and examples from London on green recovery with C40, and following key developments in other cities. • Water and energy utilities providers kept the Strategic Coordinating Group up to date with their COVID-19 response efforts. All providers developed plans to ensure business continuity and adapted their priorities and interventions to ensure the service continued and the most vulnerable were protected. GLA teams have maintained weekly communication with all providers in London to ensure their contingency plans continue to deliver services across London.
1 https://www.c40.org/press_releases/taskforce-principles
Page 108 • The focus of the Mayor’s work with water companies, as with other utilities, over the past three months has been to support the delivery of resilient supplies during lockdown. This included: o supporting water utilities in discussions with government about front line utilities employees achieving key worker status; o supporting fast tracking of essential street works; and o supporting utilities providers in their request to Government and London Resilience to share the data for those shielding from COVID-19 to establish where vulnerable households not on their Priority Service Register needed safeguarding. Government are now finalising a guidance document to improve the speed of sharing data with providers at the time of an incident. • As restrictions ease, the focus will return to ensuring water companies’ plans, investments and operations increase the long term resilience of London’s water infrastructure, plan for new water resources, reduce leakage and protect the vulnerable. • London’s water supplies and distribution network are under renewed pressure from a combination of different usage patterns due to increased home working and recent high temperatures. The Mayor has worked with Ofwat as part of the recent water company price review to secure greater investment in London’s water infrastructure and new London- specific water company performance monitoring, to help drive greater resilience in London’s supplies.
Green Infrastructure • Most parks and open spaces in London remained open during the lockdown to allow people to exercise once a day. These spaces experienced higher than usual levels of use by the public; this is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. • The Mayor has no jurisdiction of the operational management of parks and open spaces, but during the last months a ‘Parks Collaboration’ group involving the GLA, London Councils, Royal Parks, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and others has continued to meet weekly to discuss live issues and to share best practice. The GLA has worked with boroughs, park managers and MOPAC to ensure consistency on the approaches taken to manage these spaces to constantly review the measures they have put in place in light of further government guidance. • A guidance note, coordinated by the Parks Collaboration group, on using parks and green spaces was included on the GLA COVID-19 webpage. This was prepared with input from London Councils and LEDNET. The guidance has been updated to ensure the core messages are communicated as widely as possible. • The majority of the projects funded through the Greener City Fund were delivered prior to lockdown as the majority of schemes are undertaken during the winter and early spring to accommodate tree-planting, etc.
Waste • The Mayor has no jurisdiction over operational waste services so GLA waste officers have been working with LWARB, London Councils and the boroughs by: o Gathering intelligence through ongoing communications with key stakeholders working groups;
Page 109 o Feeding into LWARB-led communications to Londoners on how they can understand how their waste services were being impacted and how they could help reduce strain on service providers as well as keeping them up to date with the reintroduction of services. This has also included advice and reminders on the responsible management of waste during lockdown, particularly items of disposable PPE, such as masks and gloves; o Advising on planned response activity to ensure alignment with the Mayor’s municipal waste policies, accepting that some effort will temporarily stall as boroughs are forced to alter, suspend or withdraw some waste and recycling services; o Brokering collaborations between stakeholders, namely with Defra and the Environmental Services Association (ESA) to positively influence LWARB-led activity; o Feeding into Defra’s work on the reintroduction of services, particularly household waste recycling centres (HWRCs); o Keeping the Mayor’s communication channels open to help amplify key messaging; and o Making our London Waste Map available to display available capacity within municipal and commercial waste operators across the city. • The GLA and Thames Water agreed to temporarily close all Mayor of London/Thames Water public water fountains and pause the installation of new water fountains in London to enable Thames Water prioritise essential services to ensure Londoners have an uninterrupted supply of drinking water. Thames Water re-deployed their drinking fountains installation staff to essential services. We wish to reopen water fountains only when it is safe to do so and are seeking advice from the Scientific Technical Advice Cell (STAC) on this as well as refilling of reusable water bottles. When we obtain this information, we will review and work with Thames Water to develop a plan for safe reopening. • The Mayor has approved all 33 borough Reduction and Recycling Plans (RRPs). Some boroughs have raised that implementation of their RRPs may be delayed due to capacity issues. We have responded to say that we recognise and agree that responding to the pandemic and maintaining waste services are a priority, but hope that efforts to reduce waste and increase recycling through activities set out in RRPs can continue where possible and where it is safe to do so. Waste reduction and recycling are important activities, even in difficult times. Maintenance of these activities will help reduce economic impacts and incidences of fly-tipping. We have started to contact boroughs to understand the impact of the pandemic on the programme of work set out in their RRPs and to agree any new timelines that may be needed.
Page 110 Appendix 5
Briefing for the London Assembly Environment Committee:
Changes in air quality in London
This report summarises the latest air quality analysis produced by the Greater London Authority. This is based on three recently published reports:
• Air pollution monitoring data in London: 2016 – 2020 • Estimation of changes in air pollution during the COVID-19 outbreak • Central London ULEZ – Ten Month Report
London’s air quality monitoring stations are operated and funded by the London boroughs, Transport for London and airports. The data is made publicly available and used for statutory monitoring purposes. GLA officers undertake independent analysis using this data and the analysis summarised in this document is based on these reference monitors.
In addition, London has the indicative “Breathe London” low cost sensor network which also makes its data available in real time. The boroughs also measure nitrogen dioxide (NO2) using diffusion tubes at hundreds of locations across London.
The analysis shows significant reductions in concentrations since 2016. Exceedances of the hourly limit value for NO2 reduced by 97 per cent Londonwide between 2016 and 2019. The most significant benefits have been delivered in central London, where the Ultra Low Emission
Zone was introduced in April 2019 and helped deliver a 44 per cent reduction in NO2, and at monitors located along Low Emission Bus Zones.
Annual average NO2 reduced by an average of 21 per cent at monitoring sites Londonwide between 2016 and 2019, with reductions as high as 50 per cent at Putney High Street Façade where the first Low Emission Bus Zone was introduced in 2017.
Impact of Covid-19 lockdown
The COVID-19 lockdown starting in March 2020 and continuing in full effect until June 2020 had a significant impact on daily road traffic counts, which reduced by around 50 per cent.
Analysis suggests that during lockdown daily average NO2 levels at roadside sites reduced by around 40 per cent in central London and 20 per cent in the rest of London. These reductions are in addition to the reductions delivered by the ULEZ and other policies in the last four years, as shown in the graph below.
Page 111 In 2020, before measures to address the COVID outbreak were introduced, hourly average levels of NO2 at all monitoring sites in central London had already reduced by more than a third (35 per cent) compared to the same period in 2017. Since 16 March 2020 there has been an additional reduction of 26 per cent.
For the other pollutants which are more affected by regional changes, the picture is more complex. There have been peaks in ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 since stricter measures were introduced in London. These peaks are all usual for this time of year and at present are not thought to be linked to the introduction of COVID-19 measures.
During lockdown there were three particulate matter pollution episodes partly caused by domestic wood-burning, garden waste-burning and BBQs in London. There has also been one high pollution episode for ozone and increases in ozone at roadside and kerbside locations. This increase in ozone may be linked to the decrease in NOx emissions from road transport, although further research is needed to confirm this.
GLA officers will be evaluating the change in air pollution concentrations as London exits lockdown. Traffic volumes in central London are still below pre-lockdown levels, and may not return for some time. Air pollution concentrations are affected by many different factors including the weather and regional contributions from outside London, as well as impacts from local schemes and interventions. Therefore, analysis of air quality monitoring data will need to continue over time.
Page 112 A number of reports indicate pollution levels are beginning to increase again. However, we are waiting for more data to be available before publishing any City Hall analysis, which we expect to do in September 2020.
Page 113 Title: Air pollution monitoring data in London: 2016 – 2020
Date published: 20 February 2020
Available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE- DO/environment/environment-publications/air-pollution-monitoring- data-london-2016-2020
Summary: This report evaluates four years of air quality data from monitoring sites across London between 2016 to 2020. This period coincides with the implementation of key air quality policies in London including the central London Ultra Low Emission Zone and the twelve Low Emission Bus Zones.
Key findings:
• Exceedances of the hourly limit value for NO2 reduced by 97 per cent Londonwide between 2016 and 2019 • In 2019 there was only one, the monitoring site on the Strand in Westminster, which breached in July. From 2004 to 2017 the limit value has been breached within the first week of each year.
• Annual average NO2 reduced by an average of 21 per cent at monitoring sites Londonwide between 2016 and 2019, with reductions as high as 50 per cent at Putney High Street Façade where the first Low Emission Bus Zone was introduced in 2017
• All monitoring sites recorded a reduction in annual average NO2 and the number of
monitoring sites exceeding annual limit for NO2 fell by 40 per cent. However, there is still more work to be done. In 2019, 34 of the 86 comparable sites still exceeded the annual
legal limit for NO2
• The majority of sites recorded a reduction in annual mean PM10 with an average reduction of 11 per cent across the network, rising to 14 per cent for roadside sites
• Less data is available for PM2.5 as there are fewer sites and more issues with data capture.
However, the majority of sites recorded reductions in annual mean PM2.5 with an average reduction of 9 per cent across the network, rising to 16 per cent for roadside sites
• More action is needed to tackle PM2.5, as over 80 per cent of monitoring sites in 2019 still
recorded levels of PM2.5 above the World Health Organization recommended limit.
Page 114 Title: Estimation of changes in air pollution during the COVID-19 outbreak
Date published: 23 February 2020
Available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE- DO/environment/environment-publications/estimation-changes-air- pollution-during-covid-19-outbreak-0
Summary: This report is London’s response to the UK Government Air Quality Expert Group's (AQEG) call for evidence on changes in air pollution during the COVID-19 outbreak.
The report shows that levels of harmful gas nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at some of London’s busiest roads reduced by around a half when measures to tackle COVID-19 were introduced. This is in addition to the significant reductions already delivered by policies including the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
For other pollutants the picture is more complex. In the period since COVID-19 measures were introduced there have been a number of moderate particulate matter episodes, resulting in a significant increase in particulate matter.
Key findings:
• During lockdown traffic in London reduced by around 50 per cent Londonwide compared to the same period in 2019. • In central London the ULEZ, which was introduced in April 2019, had already reduced traffic by approximately 10 per cent (between February 2017 and January 2020 there was a reduction of 44,100 older, more polluting, non-compliant vehicles detected in the zone on an average day equating to a 71 per cent reduction)
• During lockdown daily average NO2 reduced by around 40 per cent at roadside sites in
central London, and 20 per cent elsewhere. This is despite a slight increase in NO2 measured at regional background sites outside of London
• NO2 was significantly reduced at some of London’s busiest locations. At Oxford Street -3 daily average NO2 reduced by 23 ugm , a reduction of 47 per cent. Similarly, Marylebone Road reported a reduction of 26 ugm-3, a reduction of 48 per cent • In 2020, before measures to address the COVID outbreak were introduced, hourly average
levels of NO2 at all monitoring sites in central London had already reduced by more than
Page 115 a third (35 per cent) compared to the same period in 2017, when changes associated with the ULEZ began. Since 16 March 2020 there has been an additional reduction of 27 per cent • Kerbside sites in inner London measured a 71 µgm3 reduction in daily average NOx, a reduction of 47 per cent. Roadside sites in central London have measured a reduction of 3 62 µgm , a reduction of 56 per cent.
3 • During lockdown there was a 6 µgm (11 per cent) increase in daily average O3. This is not unusual for this time of year. However, the increase at many London sites far exceeded the increase in regional background. For example, at Marylebone Road (the
only O3 kerbside monitoring station included in this analysis) daily average O3 increased by 24 µgm3 (119 per cent). Other roadside sites and background sites in inner and central
London measured increased in daily average O3 of between 30 – 50 per cent. This
indicates the increase in O3 may also be being driven by the reduction in NOx emissions. • During lockdown there has been a number of moderate particulate matter episodes, -3 resulting in a 69 per cent (4.6 µgm ) increase in daily average PM2.5 at regional background sites outside of London. This is not unusual for this time of year. Spring time is often the worst time of the year for particulate pollution in London, spring time episodes are associated with agriculture emissions which can travel long distances. More
action is needed to tackle sources of PM2.5 from outside of London. That is why it is essential the UK Government adopt the World Health Organization guideline limit for
PM2.5 as a legally binding target to be met by 2030 in the Environment Bill.
-3 • Similarly, there was a 74 per cent (8 µgm ) increase in daily average PM10 at regional background sites outside of London during lockdown.
Page 116 Title: Central London ULEZ – Ten Month Report
Date published: 23 April 2020
Available from: https://www.london.gov.uk/WHAT-WE- DO/environment/environment-publications/central-london-ulez-ten- month-report
Summary: This report evaluates the impact of the central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) in its first ten months of operation.
Between February 2017 and February 2020, there was a 39 micrograms per cubic metre reduction in roadside concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the central zone, a reduction of 44 per cent.
In January 2020 the average compliance rate with the ULEZ standards was around 79 per cent in a 24 hour period (and 77 per cent in congestion charging hours). This is much higher than 39 per cent in February 2017 and the 61 per cent in March 2019 (congestion charging hours).
Key Findings:
• Trend analysis shows that concentrations of NO2 at roadside sites in the central zone in February 2020 are 39 µgm-3 less that in February 2017, when changes associated with the ULEZ began. This is a reduction of 44 per cent. This is over double the reduction at inner roadside sites, of 18 µgm-3, and four times the reduction at roadside sites in outer London. The smallest improvement was recorded at urban background sites in outer London, 6 µgm-3. This underlines the need for expanding the central London ULEZ to the North and South Circular roads in 2021 • Analysis to determine the directly attributable impact of the ULEZ shows that, for the
period January to February 2020, NO2 concentrations at roadside locations in central London were on average 29 µgm-3 lower, equating to a reduction of 37 per cent, compared to a scenario where there was no ULEZ
• Preliminary estimates indicate that by the end of 2019 NOx emissions from road transport in the central zone have reduced by 35 per cent (230 tonnes) compared to a scenario where there was no ULEZ. This is on track to achieve a 45 per cent reduction in the first year of the scheme
Page 117 • Preliminary estimates indicate that by the end of 2019 CO2 emissions from road transport in the central zone have reduced by 6 per cent (12,300 tonnes) compared to a scenario where there was no ULEZ • None of the air quality monitoring stations located on ULEZ boundary roads have
measured an increase in NO2 concentrations since the introduction of the ULEZ indicating no issue with the displacement of traffic and related emissions • From March 2019 to January 2020 there was a large reduction in the number of older, more polluting, non-compliant vehicles detected in the zone: some 17,400 fewer on an average day, a reduction of 49 per cent in congestion charging hours. This is higher than the 13,500 reduction reported after 6 months • There was a 41 per cent decrease in the proportion of vehicles in the central zone that were non-compliant from March 2019 to January 2020 in congestion charging hours
To fully understand the impact of the scheme it is necessary to take into account pre- compliance (i.e. people and businesses preparing ahead of time for the start of the new scheme). With this in mind, the changes between February 2017 and January 2020 were as follows:
• There was a large reduction in the number of older, more polluting, non-compliant vehicles detected in the zone: a reduction of 44,100 vehicles on an average day, equating to a 71 per cent reduction • There was a 96 per cent increase in the proportion of vehicles detected in the central zone that were compliant from February 2017 to January 2020
The average 24-hour compliance rate for all vehicles was 79 per cent in January 2020.
Page 118 Agenda Item 8
Subject: Action Taken Under Delegated Authority
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 20 July 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report outlines recent actions taken by the Chair under delegated authority, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, in accordance with the delegations granted by the Environment Committee.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee notes the recent action taken by the Chair of the Committee under delegated authority, in consultation with the party Group Lead Members, namely to agree the Committee’s report, The Climate Emergency: Extreme Weather and Emissions, as attached at Appendix 1.
3. Background
3.1 In January and February 2020, the Committee held two open-mic meetings as part of their investigation into the climate emergency, with a focus on emissions and extreme weather.
3.2 At its meeting on 15 January 2020, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with Party Group Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion. [Climate Change and Extreme Weather]
3.3 At its meeting on 13 February 2020, the Environment Committee resolved:
That authority be delegated to the Chair, in consultation with Party Group Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion. [Climate Emergency (Emissions)]
3.4 The Chair used the above standing delegations to agree the Committee’s report, which included a number of recommendations to the Mayor.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 119
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 As part of the Committee’s investigation, the Committee published the report, The Climate Emergency: Extreme Weather and Emissions, on 30 April 2020. The report is attached at Appendix 1.
4.2 The Committee is recommended to note the action taken under delegated authority.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in this report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – The Climate Emergency: Extreme Weather and Emissions, 30 April 2020
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: Member Delegated Authority Form 1153 [Climate Change and Extreme Weather/Climate Emergency (Emissions)] Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4383 Email: [email protected]
Page 120 Appendix 1
The Climate Emergency: Extreme Weather and Emissions
LONDONASSEMBLY Page 121 Environment Committee
The Environment Committee examines all aspects of the capital’s environment, by reviewing the Mayor’s strategies on air quality, water, waste, climate change and energy.
CONTACT Daniel Tattersall, Policy Adviser [email protected] Tel: 020 8039 1328
Aoife Nolan, External Communications Officer [email protected] Tel: 020 7983 4067
FOLLOW US @LondonAssembly Page 122 facebook.com/london.assembly 1 FOREWORD FROM THE CHAIR Caroline Russell AM
The coming decade is pivotal if we are to meet the challenge of the climate emergency.
Our climate is already changing. Like the rest of the UK, London’s average summer temperatures are becoming progressively warmer. London is already vulnerable to flooding, drought, and heat. Projected severe weather events make these risks more likely and more serious, posing a threat to Londoners’ health and wellbeing. And we know that the most vulnerable people in our society – the very young, the old, those in poor health, those on the lowest incomes – will be the most impacted by the climate emergency.
London – like the rest of the world – needs to cut its carbon emissions and build resilience to the effects of the climate emergency, and quickly. This report underlines that action to prevent climate change, and adapt to its effects, can bring positive changes to people’s lives, especially for some of London’s poorest communities. Action like fitting homes with energy efficiency measures that in turn make them more comfortable and affordable to heat. Or like establishing local, renewable energy projects that bring communities together and build skills for the kinds of jobs we will need in the future.
The Mayor of London has a vital strategic role to play in all of this. While minds are rightly focussed on the immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, over the next ten years, London’s Mayors need to make bold decisions, work collaboratively, and use their powerful voice to push national government into action to address the climate emergency. The recommendations put forward in this report can help London’s Mayors to do so, for the benefit of this and future generations.
April 2020
Page 123 2 INTRODUCTION In December 2018, the London Assembly declared a climate emergency, and called on the Mayor to do likewise and put in place specific emergency plans so that London is carbon neutral by 2030.¹
The Mayor declared a climate emergency shortly after the Assembly and in early 2020, set a target for London to be net zero-carbon by 2030. To meet this 2030 target, any future Mayor will need to take a wide range of ambitious actions and provide strong strategic leadership.
The effects of the climate emergency are already being felt in London. The capital urgently needs to build its resilience² and adapt to these changes, whilst also mitigating its own contribution to carbon emissions.
To gain a picture of what needs to be done across several key areas, the London
Assembly Environment Committee sought answers to four questions:
1. How can London build resilience 2. How can London build resilience against heatwaves and drought? against flooding from extreme London is getting warmer, with rainfall? potentially fatal consequences, and The city is at increasingly high risk of unless action is taken London will flooding, which poses risk to physical soon not have enough water to meet and mental health, and impacts demand. property, transport infrastructure and the economy.
3. How can we reduce emissions 4. How can we reduce emissions from the buildings we live in? from the energy consumed in Substantially and rapidly increasing London’s homes and communities? the energy efficiency of London’s There is great potential for the housing stock is vital if the 2030 generation of clean energy within target is to be met. London itself.
Page 124 3 The answers to all these questions are not necessarily distinct, and some of the most effective solutions can achieve both mitigation and resilience aims.
Whilst there is mayoral activity in all the areas considered by the Committee’s investigation – through work programmes such as the London Plan,³ the London Environment Strategy⁴ and the London City Resilience Strategy 2020⁵ – the Committee sought to understand whether current plans are sufficient to tackle, and adapt to, the climate emergency.
The Committee held two ‘open-mic’ meetings, hearing from a range of policymakers, community members, and research and academic experts. They were asked to explore what failure to adapt to the climate emergency could mean for Londoners, what actions need to be taken, and what the Mayor’s role is in facilitating these actions. These meetings were also open to public attendance, and input was received from the public gallery at City Hall and online through Twitter. The video recordings⁶ and transcripts⁷ from the meeting are publicly available.
Three themes emerged across both meetings. First, that tackling the climate emergency should also ensure a reduction in health and social inequalities that already exist, and that there will be significant health and inequality implications if resilience to the effects of the climate emergency is not increased. Second, communication and engagement between policymakers and communities is vital to help people be resilient to the effects of the climate emergency, and to ensure that solutions put in place work for the communities they are designed to serve. Third, the pace and scale of change will need to increase significantly if London is to meet the Mayor’s target of being carbon neutral by 2030.
The recommendations that emerged from the meetings are not exhaustive. However, based on what the Committee heard, they indicate a set of priorities for London’s Mayors over the next decade and beyond. Of course, there also remains a pressing need for broad international and national action to tackle the climate emergency. Page 125 4 RECOMMENDATIONS
How can London build resilience against heatwaves and drought? The Mayor, working with London Resilience Partners, should prioritise the review of non-potable water reuse contained within the London City Resilience Strategy 2020, with a particular focus on the role of using regulation to mandate water reuse. a
The Mayor should ensure that existing and proposed water sustainability and heatwave awareness activities are backed by targets and milestones, so that progress in raising Londoners’ awareness, particularly amongst those most vulnerable to drought and heatwaves, can be evaluated over the next decade by successive Mayors.
How can London build resilience against flooding from extreme rainfall?
Programmes run by the Mayor and partners to communicate flood risk from extreme rainfall should be reviewed for effectiveness, should target those most at risk, and be backed by targets and milestones so that increased public awareness can be evaluated over the next decade by successive Mayors.
The Mayor should consider further and enhanced Community Green Space Grant rounds and extend the Greener City Fund with a proportion allocated to community led green SuDS, targeting communities in existing developments in areas of high surface water flooding and/or heat risk.
a The Conservative group does not support this recommendation. It is not felt that extra regulation is necessary to provide the solution. Page 126 5 RECOMMENDATIONS
How can we reduce emissions from the buildings we live in?
The Mayor should work with the boroughs and other partners to develop a lobbying strategy for a range of new and existing asks from central government. This should include:
Allocating London’s fair proportion of future national funding for housing energy efficiency and decarbonisation to the GLA where it would be strategic to do so, and allocating London’s proportionate share of Energy Company Obligation funding;
Abolishing VAT on all products and services used for energy efficiency retrofit; b
Establishing a national interest-free loan scheme for able-to-pay households; and
Providing funding to facilitate enforcement of the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard.
The Mayor should allocate a portion of the Green New Deal Fund to extending and increasing retrofit programmes in London, continuing the focus on vulnerable and fuel poor households. An interest-free loan scheme for able-to-pay households in London should also be explored.
The Mayor should establish a workstream within Skills for Londoners focused on building skills and workforce capacity in the retrofit and energy efficiency sector.
b The Conservative group does not support this part of the recommendation. It is notPage felt 127 that extra regulation is necessary to provide the solution. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS
How can we reduce emissions from the energy consumed in London’s homes and communities?
The Mayor should increase funding for feasibility studies and set-up costs, for community clean energy programmes, perhaps through the Green New Deal Fund, and this should be backed by the provision of expert support to help ensure projects get off the ground.
The Mayor should prioritise wider roll-out of district heat networks, with a particular focus on clarifying long-term ownership and management models for this technology.
Page 128 7 How can London build resilience against heatwaves and drought?
London is experiencing temperatures that are higher than the historic average and more frequent severe hot weather events. At the same time, London is particularly susceptible to these rising temperatures, and generates its own microclimate, known as an Urban Heat Island (UHI). The UHI is caused by an extensive built-up area absorbing and retaining heat during the day and night, and can result in London being 10 degrees centigrade warmer than the surrounding rural areas.⁸ High temperatures can be fatal. Public Health England recently estimated that a total of 892 excess deaths occurred in the UK during the three heatwaves of 2019, with 223 of these in London.⁹
Droughts are natural events that occur when a period of low rainfall creates a shortage of water. The last recorded drought in London occurred in 2012. London has experienced the early stages of drought as recently as winter 2018. The London Risk Register (last updated in January 2019) classifies the risk of severe drought as ‘very high’.¹⁰ Significant action will be needed for London to mitigate its drought risk. Even with some projected water efficiency gains, London is forecast to have a water resource ‘gap’ of over 100m litres per day by 2020, rising to a deficit of over 400m litres per day by 2040.¹¹
Health and inequality Extreme heat can cause respiratory, cardiac and renal illness, and can ultimately be fatal.¹², ¹³ Older people are particularly vulnerable: of London’s 223 extra deaths during the 2019 heatwaves, 182 were people aged 65 or over.¹⁴ Other groups at particular risk include the very young and those whose health, housing or economic circumstances make them especially susceptible.¹⁵
Water shortages due to a drought in London would have numerous serious and life threatening health consequences, as a result of lower water consumption and lower hygiene levels. Water shortages can also have a significant impact on the mental wellbeing of individuals and communities.¹⁶ As with heatwaves, these effects will be felt most severely by the most vulnerable in society.¹⁷ Heatwaves and drought also increase pressure on stretched health services. Some hospitals experienced record numbers of people attending during the 2018 heatwave, and NHS officials have warned of summer pressures equalling those seen in winter, placingPage the 129 NHS in year-round crisis.¹⁸ ¹⁹ ' 8 Communication and engagement
Public Health England told the Committee that communicating the health risks of heat is challenging, as many people view the warmer weather positively.²⁰ The Committee also heard that many people are not sufficiently aware of the possible impacts of drought and what can be done to help mitigate both the likelihood and effects of drought. Thames Water told the Committee that Londoners use more water than they need to.²¹ Londoners use 149 litres per day, higher than any other area of the country. The Environment Agency’s recommended daily use is 100 litres per day.²² Public engagement is required, alongside infrastructure developments that reduce water use and wastage, to help people realise the value of water and at least bring London’s consumption in line with the rest of the UK.
Pace and scale of change
The Committee heard that stronger planning regulation is required to ensure non-potable water (water not fit for drinking, such as rainwater) is reused. Currently, through the Mayor’s draft new London Plan²³ housing developers are encouraged, but not mandated, to build in solutions that reuse rainwater. As a result, it is likely that the provision of these ‘dual systems’ will remain low. The London City Resilience Strategy 2020 recognises this issue, and commits to exploring whether ‘additional planning policy, guidance or regulatory change is necessary’. The evidence heard by the Committee suggests that regulatory change is required.
Attendees also discussed the importance of policymakers engaging with Londoners about valuing and reducing water use to help mitigate the likelihood of drought. The London City Resilience Strategy 2020 outlines a project to promote a decrease in water wastage, though details are currently light. This project must explore how the Mayor can best use his strategic position to disseminate information to Londoners, and set milestones for both water wastage reduction and public awareness of the value of water over the next decade. The Mayor’s leadership role would also be well suited to disseminating information about the health impacts of heat, and actions people can take to limit their exposure to these impacts, both in the home and outside. The London Environment Strategy sets out the development of a communications plan to Londoners in the event of extreme heat, and the London City Resilience Strategy 2020 plans to establish a network of ‘cool spots’ across the city to help Londoners deal with heat as they travel.²⁴ However, these programmes need to be complemented by a wider awareness and educational campaign. Page 130 9 … we underestimate the Heat for us [Public Health value of water. Water is England] is also a priority life. because of the increasing Sarah Green, vulnerability that we see. Campaigner Emer O'Connell, Public Health England
Heat is generally undervalued as a risk by organisations, by investors, and by the public.
Bevan Jones, Climate and Sustainability Consultant
Recommendations
The Mayor, working with London Resilience Partners, should prioritise the review of non-potable water reuse contained within the London City Resilience Strategy 2020, with a particular focus on the role of using regulation to mandate water reuse. c
The Mayor should ensure that existing and proposed water sustainability and heatwave awareness activities are backed by targets and milestones, so that progress in raising Londoners’ awareness, particularly amongst those most vulnerable to drought and heatwaves, can be evaluated over the next decade by successive Mayors.
c The Conservative group does not support this recommendation. It is not felt that extra regulation is necessary to provide the solution.
Page 131 10 How can London build resilience against flooding from extreme rainfall?
London is at risk from three types of flooding caused, or exacerbated, by extreme rainfall. Surface water flooding and fluvial (river) flooding are both deemed to be ‘very high’ risk by the London Risk Register, and the risk of groundwater flooding is ‘high’.²⁵ Severe flooding has the potential to affect hundreds of thousands of properties: overall, 17 per cent of London is deemed to be at either medium or high risk of flooding.²⁶
Contributors at the meeting focused predominantly on surface water flooding. This type of flooding occurs when the drainage system becomes overwhelmed and rain cannot empty into local drains, sewers or watercourses. It can be caused either by the sheer intensity of rainfall, or by infrastructure failure such as blockages within the drainage network. Rapid urbanisation and development across the capital has resulted in an increase in impermeable surfaces.²⁷ River flooding and high groundwater levels can exacerbate surface water flooding: high river levels from either rainfall or high tides can reduce the capacity of storm water drainage systems, and high groundwater levels reduce the natural drainage capacity of permeable ground.²⁸
The climate emergency means that London is likely to continue to experience wetter, warmer winters, and heavier summer showers. Coupled with the city’s projected population growth, pressure on drainage systems will continue to increase.³⁰ The consequences of flooding are wide ranging. It can damage property, affect transport, impact the economy, pose a danger to health and wellbeing, and pollute the environment.
Health and inequality Flooding can have lasting impacts on people’s health and wellbeing, particularly for older and disabled people who are more likely to be trapped by rising water. The stress caused by damage to housing and having to move out of a home can have profound mental health implications.³⁰
In addition, much of inner-London’s sewer system carries both sewage and rainwater. When these sewers become overloaded, sewage can flow back up into showers and toilets, and end up in people’s basements. Sewage can also be discharged into the Thames and its tributary rivers,Page with 132 serious consequences for the ecosystem.³¹ 11
Communication and engagement
In May 2018 the Mayor committed to work with partners to raise awareness of flood risk.³² However, the Committee heard from several contributors that people in London are not aware of their flood risk, in particular from surface water flooding, and that flood awareness campaigns need to become more proactive and targeted. This is backed up by a 2019 YouGov poll, which found that 71 per cent of people surveyed in London had never checked their flood risk.³³
This suggests that the Mayor’s proposal in the London Environment Strategy to increase flood awareness may not yet be taking effect, and broad Mayoral initiatives such as Flood Awareness Week may not be reaching the right audiences. Targets for public flood awareness would help drive awareness initiatives and measure their effectiveness, particularly amongst those most vulnerable to flood risk and its effects.
The Committee also heard about the importance of engaging communities in flood mitigation, adaptation and recovery plans. A dialogue between policymakers and communities is key to effective education about, and mitigation from, flooding, and can help to overcome some of the inherent inequalities in exposure to flood risk.³⁴
Pace and scale of change If rainwater is captured and stored for reuse rather than discharged onto the ground, pressure on drainage facilities is reduced. This also reduces demand for potable water, increasing available water for drinking.
Significant action is needed to minimise impermeable surfaces in London, to help retain water and discharge it slowly, so that the risk of surface water flooding is reduced. Solutions such as sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS) or ‘blue- green’ infrastructure, that incorporate urban water infrastructure and urban vegetation, can deliver wider benefits. For example, the Committee heard about how small community gardens can absorb water during periods of extreme rainfall, then release it slowly, whilst also enhancing the public realm for residents.
The Mayor has several policies and programmes designed to drive further SuDS in new developments and SuDS retrofitting, including in the London Environment Strategy, the Sustainable Drainage Action Plan, and the London Plan. However, the Committee heard that funding schemes at the scale and pace required, particularly in existing Page 133 developments, remains a challenge. 12 Mayoral grants programmes provide some opportunities, albeit at a small scale, to invest in SuDS. For instance, the Community Green Space Grant has enabled communities to improve and create green infrastructure across London, including SuDS. This type of funding should continue. Green Capital grants³⁵ (part of the Greener City Fund) have also been used to support specific green infrastructure interventions with broader environmental benefits such as reducing flood risk. 71% of people surveyed in London have never checked their flood risk. Most of the communities do not know that they are at risk from flooding, YouGov, 2019 particularly surface water… Although we have flood awareness weeks and other things, that is quite a passive form of communication
Victoria Boorman, London Borough of Hillingdon
…the policies designed to reduce the impacts of extreme weather are often conceived and possibly usually enacted without the inclusion of the people and populations who are most at risk, or at least defined as most vulnerable.
Shona Paterson, Brunel University
Recommendations
Programmes run by the Mayor and partners to communicate flood risk from extreme rainfall should be reviewed for effectiveness, should target those most at risk, and be backed by targets and milestones so that increased public awareness can be evaluated over the next decade by successive Mayors.
The Mayor should consider further and enhanced Community Green Space Grant rounds and extend the Greener City Fund, with a proportion allocated to community-led green SuDS, targeting communities in existing developments in areas of high surface water flooding and/or heat risk. Page 134 13 How can we reduce emissions from the buildings we live in? There are 3.56 million homes in London,³⁶ which account for 37 per cent of the city’s carbon emissions.³⁷ Dramatically reducing emissions from London’s homes by increasing their energy efficiency is critical if London is to be net zero by 2030. But it is not just about the carbon savings: increasing the energy efficiency of homes reduces energy bills, helping to narrow social and health inequalities.³⁸
Each London household spends an average of £1,175 on gas and electricity bills every year.³⁹ For many, this level of expenditure is simply not manageable.⁴⁰ The latest (2017) data shows that 11.8 per cent of London’s households are in fuel poverty – when spending the average amount on fuel would leave a household below the poverty line.⁴¹ This is the highest since the measurement began in 2003.⁴² Inefficient homes contribute to fuel poverty and are associated with damp and mould, which can have severe health implications.
Retrofitting is the process of altering an existing home, usually through the addition of new technologies or materials, to make it lower-carbon, lower-energy and more resilient to the changing climate.⁴³
There are a range of mayoral programmes designed to increase the energy efficiency of buildings. For example, the Retrofit Accelerator – Homes is a £3.6 million programme which aims to provide London boroughs and housing associations with the necessary technical expertise to commence ‘whole-house’ retrofit projects and help build the supply chain and business case to accelerate retrofitting in private homes. The Mayor also introduced London’s first Fuel Poverty Action Plan, which includes a number of measures to support Londoners struggling to heat their homes.
The Mayor has recently earmarked £50 million for a ‘Green New Deal Fund’,⁴⁴ the specific details of which are yet to be provided and could deliver an opportunity to scale up retrofitting. However, the Mayor does not have the funding and powers needed from central Government to ensure that all his energy efficiency programmes, even in combination, can deliver at the scale or pace required. Unprecedented central government action is desperately required.
At one point there was four of us sleeping in one room and still you would wake up in the morning and you could see your breath. It was absolutely freezing. Page 135 14 Leila Fortunato, Banister House Solar in Hackney Health and inequality The inability to heat homes properly is a widespread issue in London. A 2016 survey by Shelter and YouGov found that 26 per cent of private renters in London have experienced poor insulation or excess cold, and 39 per cent have experienced damp or mould in their homes.⁴⁵ Cold, damp and mouldy homes have serious consequences for Londoners’ health, with vulnerable groups such as the old, the young and people with disability, particularly affected. Respiratory conditions, circulatory problems and poor mental health and wellbeing can all be caused or worsened by cold and damp homes.⁴⁶ These health impacts can be so severe that they lead to death. Over the winter of 2017-18, around 1,260 extra deaths were attributable to cold and damp homes. For every cold-related death, there are eight nonfatal hospital admissions.⁴⁷ Nationally, treating the health impacts of cold homes costs the NHS an estimated £1.36 billion each year.⁴⁸ The Committee heard powerful testimony from people with experience of living in fuel poverty, who talked about leaving some rooms in their house completely unheated, whole families sleeping in one room to stay warm, condensation dripping onto the floor, and mould growing on walls and ceilings.
Communication and engagement
The Committee heard that properties are frequently under-ventilated. This is worse in over-occupied homes and exacerbates damp and mould issues. It is vital when retrofitting properties for energy efficiency that both ventilation and insulation are considered together. Alongside insulation and making homes more airtight, through new windows and frames, moisture in the air needs to have a way out of buildings through continuous ventilation.⁴⁹ Retrofitted home improvements that focus solely on making homes warmer can unintentionally lead to damp.
Householders are often either unaware of the importance of ventilation, or are wary of letting any heat out because they are struggling to afford to heat their homes. Properly considered retrofit measures have a big role to play in solving this problem, by keeping homes warmer and lowering energy bills and, crucially, by installing continuous ventilation systems. As identified in the Environment Committee’s report Keeping out the chill, energy advice and education should be provided along with retrofit measures, to help residents reduce damp and mould in their homes.⁵⁰
As a young child I lived in very cold conditions to the point where my young sister who lives in France has a lifelong illness as a result of being brought up in these conditions. Page 136 Chris Mason-Ryan, National Pensioners Convention 15 Pace and scale of change London’s housing stock needs to be made much more energy efficient, quickly, and at scale. To facilitate this, the Committee heard that there needs to be significant investment, landlord accountability, and supply chain growth.
There needs to be a radical increase in investment from central government. The Energy Saving Trust has calculated that at least £1.5 billion per year extra funding will be required just to get all existing houses up to Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) level C. The Committee heard that, to maximise efficient and strategic use of new funds, the GLA would be best placed to utilise government funding, and should also assume responsibility for London’s share of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) – a national energy efficiency fund contributed to by energy companies.⁵¹ London households pay for ECO through their energy bills, contributing more than 13 per cent to ECO nationally.⁵² However, ECO activity in London constitutes only seven percent of national installations. London’s fair share of ECO is estimated to be around £80m per year.
Attendees told the Committee that investment in retrofit should be stimulated by a reduction in VAT on products and services used for energy efficiency retrofit.⁵³ The Committee also heard that England is falling behind other countries by not offering low-interest or interest-free loans for able-to-pay homeowners to retrofit energy efficiency improvements. This absence is particularly acute given the failure of the Green Deal – a policy that allowed homeowners to offset expenditure on energy efficiency improvements through savings on energy bills.
25 per cent (854,800) of London’s properties are privately-rented.⁵⁴ The Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES) requires any properties that are being rented out in the private sector to have a minimum EPC rating of E before they can be rented out or the renewal of an existing tenancy agreement can be issued.⁵⁵ Due to budget cuts, local authorities are experiencing challenges in identifying non-compliant properties, contacting landlords and resourcing enforcement activity,⁵⁶ meaning that during the first 12 months of the regulation being in place, local authorities were unable to bring any enforcement action.⁵⁷ The Committee heard calls which echoed previous mayoral requests for funding to help London’s boroughs enforce the MEES.⁵⁸ There was also general agreement that the maximum amount a landlord is required to invest in energy saving measures should be raised from £3,500 to £5,000 - backing a previous London Assembly motion on the matter.⁵⁹
London’s homes account for 37 per cent of the city’s carbon CO2 emissions. Page 137 Greater London Authority, 2017 16 Contributors agreed that the retrofit industry will need to be expanded at pace, to be ready for increases in investment and regulatory changes. Unlocking capacity building in the supply chain will be key to realising the widespread retrofitting of London’s homes. The Mayor would be well-placed to respond to this challenge, using Skills for Londoners ⁶⁰ to initiate a workstream focused on building skills and capacity in the energy efficiency retrofit workforce. Recommendations
The Mayor should work with the boroughs and other partners to develop a lobbying strategy for a range of new and existing asks from central government. This should include:
Allocating London’s fair proportion of future national funding for housing energy efficiency and decarbonisation to the GLA where it would be strategic to do so, and allocating London’s proportionate share of Energy Company Obligation funding;
Abolishing VAT on all products and services used for energy efficiency retrofit;d
Establishing a national interest-free loan scheme for able-to- pay households; and
Providing funding to facilitate enforcement of the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard.
The Mayor should allocate a portion of the Green New Deal Fund to extending and increasing retrofit programmes in London, continuing the focus on vulnerable and fuel poor households. An interest-free loan scheme for able-to-pay households in London should also be explored.
The Mayor should establish a workstream within Skills for Londoners focused on building skills and workforce capacity in the retrofit and energy efficiency sector.
d The Conservative group does not support this part of the recommendation. Page 138 17 11.8 per cent of London’s No insulation without ventilation. households are in fuel poverty. Peter Rickaby, UK Centre for Greater London Authority, Moisture in Buildings, and energy 2017 and sustainability consultant
The challenge we face is how to Our view is that the scale of the scale that up and roll those [energy challenge needs a national response. efficiency] programmes out across a
large stock. Naomi Baker, Energy Saving Trust
Sarah Cary, Enfield Council
If you are asking about what more could the Mayor and the Government do… it is definitely look at capacity building in the supply chain.
Sarah Cary, Enfield Council
Page 139 18 How can we reduce emissions from the energy consumed in London’s homes and communities? London’s homes should be as energy efficient as possible. However, they still require power and heat, and if London is to achieve net zero by 2030, this will need to come from renewable sources. London will continue to secure the bulk of its energy from the national grid, which will require central government action to decarbonise. There is, however, great potential for the decarbonisation of energy and heat within London itself through more local, decentralised low-carbon energy, such as community renewable energy projects and district heat networks.
Community energy projects, where energy is locally and cleanly produced, used, and can be sold back to the national grid, are already being established in London. Many are supported by the Mayor’s London Community Energy Fund. As of February 2020, 48 projects had been supported, including solar panels on social housing⁶¹ and schools,⁶² and an anaerobic digester to supply biogas to a shared workspace.⁶³ District heat networks connect buildings to sources of low-cost, low-carbon waste and renewable energy – such as heat from the London underground – across a wide area, to provide them with heating and cooling. The Committee heard that district heat networks are critical to decarbonisation,⁶⁴ and this is reflected in their prominence in both the London Environment Strategy and Zero Carbon London plan.⁶⁵
Health and inequality
The Committee heard how community energy projects can deliver social benefits. They allow individuals to invest, and receive a return on their investment through income generated by the sale of power to the national grid. Some of these returns are also ringfenced for community projects.
There is also the potential for decentralised energy to increase energy affordability. For instance, the London Infrastructure Plan⁶⁶ concluded that Londoners’ bills could be up to 40 per cent lower under a highly decentralised energy scenario.
Page 140 19 Communication and engagement
Community energy projects allow communities to connect with each other, and engage and learn about energy and energy saving. Organisations such as Repowering London train members of the community in technical and business skills during project installation, and these skills can then help boost individuals’ employment prospects.⁶⁷ Energy schemes located in schools also provide a ready-made learning opportunity for children about energy and the climate emergency.⁶⁸
The Committee heard that community energy projects fit within the framework of a ‘just transition’ to respond to the climate emergency. They do this, for instance, by allowing for community input and cooperation on solutions that work for them, and by providing training and education opportunities.
Pace and scale of change
The Committee heard that community energy projects will not meet London’s energy needs alone, but they can make a substantial contribution.⁶⁹ There is significant potential for a growth in community energy projects in London. Those who help deliver projects said that continued and increased support for feasibility studies was key to their expansion.
This initial, speculative investment is often unattainable for communities; but once the viability of a project has been determined, projects are able to generate investment against expected returns. It is vital that the Mayor’s London Community Energy Fund, which has supported these feasibility studies, begins new and increased funding rounds over future mayoral terms, to help rapidly expand the growth of community energy projects across the capital. The Committee heard about the key role that heat networks can have in energy decarbonisation and reducing bills.⁷⁰
The Mayor has committed to district heating networks forming an integral part of London meeting its 2050 zero-carbon target.⁷¹ This is supported by technical assistance programmes,⁷² finance (through the Mayor’s Energy Efficiency Fund), and planning policy.⁷³ However, if current build-out rates are to be increased, and ambitions are to be scaled up to meet 2030 targets, significantly more financial support will be required. Issues relating to network ownership monopolies and consumer rights⁷⁴ will also need to be resolved.
Page 141 20 By building co-operatives across different estates, we were able to come up with solutions that were estate-based. Community energy really focuses on power to, for and by people. It is about localised solutions.
Agamemnon Otero, Repowering London
Can you power all of London through community [energy]? No, you cannot; and nobody in the community energy sector is saying that. Can you scale up the amount and work and projects that communities are doing? Absolutely.
Syed Ahmed, Energy for London
Recommendations
The Mayor should increase funding for feasibility studies and set- up costs, for community clean energy programmes, perhaps through the Green New Deal Fund, and this should be backed by the provision of expert support to help ensure projects get off the ground.
The Mayor should prioritise wider roll-out of district heat networks, with a particular focus on clarifying long-term ownership and management models for this technology.
Page 142 21 The Environment Committee would like to thank all guests that contributed across both meetings.
January 2020: Drought, heatwaves and flooding Alex Nickson, Thames Water Alice Reeves, GLA Fire and Resilience Dr Anastasia Mylona, Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers Barry Todman, National Pensioners Convention Bevan Jones, Climate and sustainability consultant Cassie Sutherland, GLA Environment Charles Snead, TfL Charlie Wood, Environment Agency Chris Mason-Ryan, National Pensioners Convention Christina Calderato, TfL Emer O'Connell, Public Health England Jacob Tompkins OBE, The Water Retail Company James Dalton, Association of British Insurers Sarah Green, Campaigner Shona Paterson, Research Fellow at Brunel University Vicky Boorman, London Borough of Hillingdon February 2020: Reducing emissions from the buildings we live in, and from the energy consumed in London’s homes and communities
Agamemnon Otero, Repowering London Ben Coombes, GLA Environment Chaitanya Kumar, Green Alliance Chris Mason-Ryan, National Pensioners Convention (Greater London Region) Darren Woolf, Loughborough University Building Energy Research Group / Blue Green UK John Kolm-Murray, GLA Environment Kamel Callender, Brixton Energy Solar Leila Fortunato, Banister House Solar in Hackney Naomi Baker, Energy Saving Trust Peter Rickaby, Energy and Sustainability Consultant (Buildings and Housing) / UK Centre for Moisture in Buildings Sarah Cary, London Borough of Enfield Syed Ahmed, Energy for London Page 143 Sylvia Baron, GLA Environment 22 Appendix 1: Minority Report David Kurten AM, Brexit Alliance Group
London needs to fully prepare for weather emergencies such as heatwaves, drought, flooding, severe storms and extreme rainfall, and must ensure it has the resilience to cope with any emergency.
However, this is an entirely separate matter from the political ideology of climate alarm-ism which claims that society must reduce carbon dioxide emissions to avoid some kind of future catastrophe. There is no climate emergency.
Items such as heat pumps and insulation should not be subsidised by the state; they should be subject to the free market.
Recommendations
1. The Mayor should continue to take action with Resilience partners to ensure preparedness for heatwaves, drought, flooding and extreme rainfall in London, and the Brexit Alliance Group accepts recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 7 concerning these issues.
2. District heat networks should be economically viable in the free market. The Mayor should not be involved in promoting or subsidising them.
3. It is not the place of the Mayor or government to provide subsidies to homeowners to retrofit their own homes with insulation or to ‘decarbonise’. The Mayor should scrap his Green New Deal fund and spend the allocated sum of £50,000,000 on other priorities.
Page 144 23 References
1. London Assembly. Assembly calls on the Mayor to declare a Climate Emergency: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/call-on-mayor-to-declare- climate-emergency 2. Resilience is the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and thrive no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience. Source: 100 Resilient Cities, pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation. 3. Greater London Authority. New London Plan: https://www.london.gov.uk/what- wedo/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan 4. Mayor of London. London Environment Strategy: https://www.london.gov.uk/ sites/default/files/london_environment_ strategy_0.pdf 5. Mayor of London. London City Resilience Strategy 2020: https://www.london.gov. uk/sites/default/files/london_city_resilience_strategy_2020_digital.pdf 6. January – Drought, heatwaves and flooding: https://www.youtube.com/ watch? v=aTZwlxJKiVo. February – Reducing emissions from the buildings we live in and the energy we consume in them: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=XTgSBAaEE4s. 7. January – Drought, heatwaves and flooding: https://www.london.gov.uk/ moderngov/documents/b18923/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%201%20-%20 Climate%20Change%20and%20Extreme%20Weather%20Wednesday%20 15-Jan- 2020%2010.00%20Environment%20.pdf?T=9. February – Reducing emissions from the buildings we live in and the energy we consume in them: https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/ documents/b18992/Minutes%20- %20Appendix%201%20- %20Climate%20Emergency%20Emissions%20Thursday%2013Feb- 2020%2010.00%20Environment%20 Commit.pdf?T=9 8. London Resilience Partnership. Severe Weather and Natural Hazards Response Framework: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/severe_weather_and_ natural_hazards_framework_v1.0.pdf
Page 145 24 9. Public Health England. PHE heatwave mortality monitoring. Summer 2019: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/841320/PHE_heatwave_report_2019.pdf 10. London Resilience Partnership. London Risk Register: https://www.london.gov. uk/sites/default/files/london_risk_register_2019.pdf 11. Mayor of London. London Environment Strategy: https://www.london.gov.uk/ sites/default/files/london_environment_ strategy_0.pdf 12. World Meteorological Association and World Health Organization. Heatwaves and Health: Guidance on Warning-System Development: https://www.who. int/globalchange/publications/WMO_ WHO_Heat_Health_Guidance_2015. pdf?ua=1 13. The Guardian. NHS faces ‘summer crisis’ as heatwave sees record numbers at A and E: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/26/uk-heatwave- creatingsummer-crisis-for-nhs-says-labour 14. Public Health England. PHE heatwave mortality monitoring. Summer 2019: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/841320/PHE_heatwave_report_2019.pdf 15. Public Health England and NHS England. Heatwave plan for England: https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/801539/Heatwave_plan_ for_England_2019.pdf 16. London Resilience Partnership. London Risk Register: https://www.london.gov. uk/sites/default/files/london_risk_register_2019.pdf 17. NHS. Heatwave: how to cope in hot weather: https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/ healthy-body/heatwave-how-to-cope-inhot-weather/ 18. The Guardian. NHS faces ‘summer crisis’ as heatwave sees record numbers at A and E: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/26/uk-heatwave- creatingsummer-crisis-for-nhs-says-labour 19. British Medical Association. BMA analysis shows year-round crisis with services struggling in summer as badly as recent winters: https://www.bma.org.uk/news/ media-centre/press-releases/2018/november/bma-analysis-shows-year-roundcrisis- with-services-struggling-in-summer-asbadly-as-recent-winters
Page 146 25 20. Emer OConnell, Public Health England: Environment Committee meeting held 15 January 2020 21. Alex Nickson, Thames Water: Environment Committee meeting held 15 January 2020 22. London Assembly. London’s Water Supply: https://www.london.gov.uk/motions/londons-water-supply 23. Greater London Authority. New London Plan: https://www.london.gov.uk/what- wedo/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan 24. Mayor of London. London City Resilience Strategy 2020: https://www.london.gov. uk/sites/default/files/london_city_resilience_strategy_2020_digital.pdf 25. London Resilience Partnership. London Risk Register: https://www.london.gov. uk/sites/default/files/london_risk_register_2019.pdf 26. Greater London Authority. London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal 2018: https:// www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ regional_flood_risk_appraisal_sept_2018.pdf 27. Ochoa-Rodriguez, S. et al. Urban pluvial flooding and climate change: London (UK), Rafina (Greece) and Coimbra (Portugal): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/ research/resources-and-pollution/water-security-and-flood-risk/urban-flooding/ 28. Ochoa-Rodriguez, S. et al. Urban pluvial flooding and climate change: London (UK), Rafina (Greece) and Coimbra (Portugal): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/ grantham/research/resources-and-pollution/water-security-and-flood-risk/urban- flooding/ 29. Mayor of London. London City Resilience Strategy 2020: https://www.london.gov. uk/sites/default/files/london_city_resilience_strategy_2020_digital.pdf 30. UK Public Health Register. Health impacts of flooding: https://ukphr.org/health- impacts-on-flooding/ 31.Mayor of London. Sustainable drainage in London: https://www.london.gov.uk/whatwe-do/environment/climate-change/ surface- water/sustainable-drainage-london#acc-i-44922 32. Mayor of London. London Environment Strategy: https://www.london.gov.uk/ sites/default/files/london_environment_ strategy_0.pdf 33. Legal Futures. Six out of 10 people admit to never checking their flood risk: https:// www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/ six-out-of-10-people-admit- to-never-checking-their-flood-risk
Page 147 26 34. Shona Paterson, Brunel University: Environment Committee meeting held 15 January 2020 35. Greater London Authority. Green Capital grants: https://www.london.gov.uk/ what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/greener-city- fund/green-capital-grants 36. Mayor of London, Housing in London: 2019: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ files/housing_in_london_2019.pdf 37. London Datastore: London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory: https://data. london.gov.uk/dataset/leggi 38. Institute of Health Equity. Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/ upload/publications/2020/Health%20Equity%20in%20England_The%20Marmot%2 0 Review%2010%20Years%20On_full%20 report.pdf 39. Association for the Conservation of Energy. Energy Efficiency in London: https://www. theade.co.uk/assets/docs/resources/Energy-Efficiency-in-London.pdf 40. A household is determined to be in fuel poverty if they have required fuel costs that are above average and, were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line. Source: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Fuel poverty statistics: https://www. gov.uk/government/collections/fuel-poverty-statistics 41. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. Fuel poverty statistics: https://www. gov.uk/government/collections/fuel-poverty-statistics 42. London Datastore. Fuel Poverty: https://data. london.gov.uk/dataset/fuel- poverty 43. Technology Strategy Board. Retrofit for the Future: https://retrofit.innovateuk.org/ documents/1524978/2138994/Retrofit%20 for%20the%20future%20-%20A%20 guide%20to%20making%20retrofit%20 work%20-%202014 44. The Guardian. Sadiq Khan sets up £50m fund to reduce emissions in London: https:// www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/ feb/17/sadiq-khan-sets-up-50m- fund-to-reduceemissions-in-london
Page 148 27 45. Shelter, 60% of London renters forced to live with unacceptable conditions, including vermin-infested, damp or dangerous homes: https://england.shelter.org.uk/media/ press_releases/articles/60_of_london_renters_forced_to_live_with_unacceptable_ conditions,_including_vermin-infested,_damp_or_ dangerous_homes2 46. London Assembly Environment Committee. Keeping out the chill: fixing London’s cold, damp and mouldy homes: https://www. london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_out_the_chill2.pdf 47. Shirley Rodrigues. Fuel Poverty Awareness Day 2019: https://www.london.gov.uk/cityhall-blog/fuel-poverty-awareness-day-2019 48. E3G, 17,000 people in the UK died last winter due to cold housing: https://www.e3g. org/news/media-room/17000-people-in-theuk-died-last-winter- due-to-cold-housing 49. London Assembly Environment Committee. Keeping out the chill: fixing London’s cold, damp and mouldy homes: https://www. london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_ out_the_chill2.pdf 50. London Assembly Environment Committee. Keeping out the chill: fixing London’s cold, damp and mouldy homes: https://www. london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keeping_ out_the_chill2.pdf 51. Ofgem. Energy Company Obligation (ECO): https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/eco 52. Mayor of London. Fuel Poverty Action Plan: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/ files/fuel_poverty_action_plan.pdf 53. Cut the VAT – a coalition of businesses and organisations from across the UK – suggests that reducing VAT from 20 per cent to five per cent on home improvements could ‘generate £15bn in economic stimulus, create 95,000 jobs and unlock a £1bn green revolution’. 54. London Datastore. Housing Tenure by Borough: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/ housing-tenure-borough 55. National Residential Landlords Association. Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards: https://www.rla.org.uk/landlord/guides/ minimum-energy- efficiency-standards.shtml
Page 149 28 56. RSM. Enforcing the enhancement of energy efficiency regulations in the English private rented sector: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads /system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/825485/ enforcing-enhancement- energy-efficiency-regulations-English-private-rented-sector.pdf 57. Radius Data Exchange. MEES one year on: no enforcement proceedings in first 12 months: https://www.egi.co.uk/news/meesone-year-on-no-enforcement- proceedings-infirst-12-months/ 58. Mayor of London. The Non-Domestic Private Rented Sector Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards: The future trajectory to 2030. Response from the Mayor of London: https:// www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ mol_response_commercial_mees_final.pdf 59. London Assembly. Assembly calls for £5,000 cost cap on landlord funding contribution: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/assembly-calls- for-5000-cost-cap 60. Mayor of London. Skills for Londoners: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we- do/skills-and-employment/skills-londoners/strategy-and-research. The 2021/22 Skills for Londoners Framework consultation runs from 20 February 2020 until 3 May 2020, and includes a question to education providers about how they are embedding green skills in their provision and supporting their staff to deliver these skills. 61. Hackney Energy. Banister House: http://www. hackneyenergy.org.uk/banister- house/ 62. EN10ERGY. Fortismere School project 2019, completed: https://en10ergy.org.uk/fortismere-school-project-2019-completed/ 63. Love Lambeth. Construction starts at LJ Works affordable workspace project in Loughborough Junction: https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/lj-works/ 64. Syed Ahmed, Energy for London: Environment Committee meeting held 13 February 2020 65. Mayor of London. Zero carbon London: A 1.5°C compatible plan: https://www.london. gov.uk/sites/default/files/1.5_action_plan_ amended.pdf 66. Greater London Authority. London Infrastrucure Plan 2050: https://www.london.gov.uk/whatwe-do/business-and-economy/better- infrastructure/london-infrastructure-plan-2050 67. Agamemnon Otero, Repowering London: Environment Committee meeting held 13 February 2020
Page 150 29 68. Sylvia Baron, GLA: Environment Committee meeting held 13 February 2020 69. Syed Ahmed, Energy for London: Environment Committee meeting held 13 February 2020 70. Syed Ahmed, Energy for London: Environment Committee meeting held 13 February 2020 71. Greater London Authority. ADD2293 Delivering District Heating Networks: https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/add2293-delivering-district-heating- networks 72. Greater London Authority. Energy Supply: https://www.london.gov.uk/what- we-do/environment/energy/energy-supply 73. Amber Fund Management. The Mayor of London’s Energy Efficiency Fund (MEEF): https:// www.amberinfrastructure.com/media/2170/ meef-fact-sheet.pdf 74. A Government consultation (running until 1 June 2020) is seeking views on policy options for regulating heat networks to protect consumers and ensure fair pricing, while supporting market growth and the development of low-carbon networks: https://www.gov.uk/government/ consultations/heat- networks-building-a-marketframework
OTHER FORMATS AND LANGUAGES If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of this report in large print or braille, or a copy of the summary and main findings in another language, then please call us on: 020 7983 4100 or email: [email protected]
Page 151 30 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 152 Agenda Item 9
Subject: Mayor’s Response to Tube Dust Output
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 20 July 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 The Committee is asked to note the response from the Mayor of London to its investigation on Tube dust.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes the Mayor’s response to the Committee’s letter on Tube dust, as attached at Appendix 1.
3. Background
3.1 On 27 June 2019, the Committee held a session on Tube dust. A letter was sent to the Mayor on 18 December 20191. The letter made a number of recommendations to the Mayor, as follows: The Committee asks that Transport for London (TfL) keeps us informed of the progress on the studies above (outlined in the letter), confirms the timelines for the publication of study results, and shares the results with us as soon as they are available. Additionally, the Committee would like to be informed of any other steps TfL takes with the objective of building a stronger evidence base on the toxicity and concentration levels of Tube dust. The Committee recommends that TfL gives further attention to the limitations of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Workplace Exposure Limits (WELs), and takes prompt action to assess the appropriateness of these limits as applied to underground particulate matter levels. The Committee also asks to be kept informed of any steps taken to adopt other occupational health standards, with updates every six months.
1 https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/london-assembly/london-assembly-publications/tube-dust-must-be-bigger-priority-tfl City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk
Page 153
The Committee recommends that all station staff should be monitored irrespective of their employer, to ensure that TfL provides as healthy a workplace as possible for all underground staff. The Committee asks that TfL provides an update on how it is monitoring cleaners and other non-TfL staff members working in the underground. The Committee asks that TfL provides updates on the status of enhanced cleaning regime, including the adoption of the trolley-based vacuum regime, the dust suppressant regime and any outstanding result from any trials being conducted.
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 The Mayor wrote to the Chair in response to the recommendations made on 11 March 2020. A copy of the Mayor’s letter is attached at Appendix 1.
4.2 The Committee is asked to note the response received.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: Appendix 1 – Letter from Mayor on Tube dust, dated 11 March 2020.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None
Contact Officer: Lauren Harvey, Senior Committee Officer Telephone: 020 7983 4616 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 154 The
Caroline Thank Chair Actions City Transport London
TfL customers and why raised
This operates containing IlL with Action matter
Tube above, innovative The new
Imperial
cirt
City
closely
•
• Queen
has Safety Hall
studies
it
research letter
of
us
Dust
by
you
has
with
Sickness
SE]
(such respiratory London Retrospective confirms the 7 commissioned
Hall,
from College
as
with
the
Russell — for
when
enhanced
provides
ways for
Tube
on s
Executive
monitors
soon The
Environment
appropriate
will
2AA
Walk
Committee
London
into
as
the
TfL
your London,
the
examine: Underground
to
train
using
and
committee absence
Dust
as
very AM
the
the staff,
and
keep
London
letter
a
dust
they
its
King’s
(HSE)
response
(TfL)
operators
effects at Cohort
the
timelines
two
latest
cardiovascular
sampling SEJ
and urgency.
dust
source
as
Committee
of
in
levels
Tube.
are
academic
is part
College workers regulatory
Assembly 18
have
2AA
understanding
asks
and of Epidemiological committed
(LU)
available.
to
December
on
and
and MAYOR
of
Tube
While
As
for
regime
your
an
particles •
that
the
its
tunnel
London.
mayorlondon.gov.uk
enhancing
station
exposed
a
estimated
studies
the
investigation.
Dust, conditions;
result,
limits,
Tube,
request
TfL
Environment
TIL
to
to
publication
2079
dust
to
informs
include
staff) maintaining
of
and
keeps to The Page 155 Page
TfL
to
in I
OF
an
study
the have
for
its
have cost
be
both
tunnel and
will
absolute
studies is
and exposed
£60
additional
conducted
risks
taking
me
tests
LONDON
us
made
I on of the
continue
higher
stations
am
Committee
million
that
£200,000.
informed
dust of
mortality/morbidity/cancer
arising
the
opportunity
will for sorry
minimum.
it
study action,
to
levels particulate
to
clear
cleanest
additional
look
information. •
tunnel
and
to
by cleaning
for
from
evaluate
london.gov.uk
investigate
independent
results,
to
including
of
of
at tunnels. the
inquiry
TIL
particles
health sickness
to
dust.
the
Our
Date:
air
delay
regime. levels
metals,
address
whether
that
possible
progress
ref:
and
It
impacts preventing
on
in
and
is
it
11
are
in
absence
researchers
replying. MGLA]
vital
shares has
must
Tube
the some •
implement
staff
for well
020
commissioned
on in
that air,
associated
its treat
within
of
Dust
87 exposed
due
LU Appendix 1
7983
the
and
the
staff
which
the
TfL
27
workers
this
from
to
9-97
results
studies
issues Health
4000 and
is
with to
93 IlL take that Action the
TIL
levels
and to welding, sources evaluate Last TfL welding Mary typical IfL
Action Hampstead of London IlL target applied which informed every the will
TfL period. began the out.
TIL dust During
includes
addition, be measurements
target
City HSE
is
included is
will
has objective inflammatory
TIL share aims appropriate
also next year,
has 1
were
University working
8-24 supporting
of
is 6
of
to
weight)
2
the
As
of
also 3 update
fumes share WELs and
recently Hall,
the why
which to
months.
meets
extra to
its
round —
Tube
1
collect
future —
Queen the
dust
identified,
of an
months
The
mg/m3
most Tube
The
underground
keep
dust
supported
King’s oxidative in
it
any average
results
further with
London,
cleaning of
at
and wider
of are
this the of
has
(particles
of
Dust. of
occupational committee
dust committee
a
improved
reductions
recent Mary Queen
dust station. source.
effect
building
Tube
metal
steps dust
station
London
most these
to
College
committee commissioned
for
takes target
toxicity
of
a
monitoring updates
complete.
across to and
University
respirable
targeted
King’s
monitoring,
in this
Dust,
SEJ
monitoring,
of
concentrations
Mary effectively
taken
a
universities from
This
average and
at
prompt
inflammation
will
its minimum, dust.
particulate
London
a
research
methods
would
the
the
2AA
studies
recommends
stronger which
health
monitoring College
University with work
around
once different
analyse
MAYOR
to
cleaning
Tube
majority
will
dust,
of
research
•
in
the adapt action
captured
regarding which
will
will
[email protected] it like
carried London
standards.
at
to
with 2005).
also
working
mote
London
these
receives
network,
these
averaged
committee
low
evidence start
assist matter
(chromium
sources
help
potential
to of
regime
regime of
measure the
other
is
to
into effectively.
cost.
London
that out
be
TfL stations. Page 156 Page
due
locations collected
these
to samples,
by
OF
TIL
this
assess
to
HSE,
to
further
informed
the
from
improve
levels.
dust putting have
agrees
to to
over
meet occupational
Future by set
TfL
in
of
research. base
as
dust
studies
VI
which LONDON
be reduce
health to
expanding
establishing
up dusts
July they
levels
TIL
the
distinct
gives
an
where
and
samples
and
information
the
carried better
For
that
The
in
an
on
in
monitoring
the
8-hour
will
to will
appropriateness
of
become PM10 arsenic).
Institute the
impacts
place from as
example,
dust air
do
the
further
further
accuracy
August committee
static
any
also understand soon •
shapes
help
quality out
results not
of
its
london.gov.uk
toxicity
health and
exposure
different
time
local
the
Tube
other
monitor
from
network-wide
exceed from
dust
available. inform
as associated
of
work will
PM2.5 2079,
metals
gravimetric
attention
and
weighted
monitoring
ventilation, will possible, of
Occupational
Dust
May
standards,
monitoring also
Queen
its
steps
and
also
the
is sizes).
environments.
was
help
the
this fractions,
these
where
needed
monitoring
in
include 2020. for
of These
potential
concentration
with
introduced. HSE’s
dust
asks
level
TfL
and
IlL
Mary average
these
‘0207983
to
This
use
sampling.
locations density
system
higher to
to
Tube
the
come
are
has I
in
to takes
(since
with
in to
Medicine’s
additional work
capture
have
could
University
identify
this
limits research
toxicology be
enable
likely
programme.
been
limitations
reference
Queen
(or
levels
at Dust.
from
updates
to
asked
This TfL
again
kept
area,
with
In
help
the
4000
ensure
to
carried
as
the
LU
TfL
of
to
of
TfL
in
to TIL
Action
TfL’s irrespective to particulate underground. possible how carried and TfL sampler.
Action maintenance and TIL suppressant cleaning
includes: million
assist
City will
will
• train • is
• • will
•
it
routine
taking
out
cleaning is
4 continue
TfL
TIL cleaning City cent. develop TfL In 5 effectiveness, 2019, respirable In combined Piccadilly
to results assessment into
Later levels
update
in
These
Hall,
operators for — —
monitoring
regime,
July September
suit
the matter
by
The
has The
also is
line,
its
action, monitoring
or
of
all
this
currently
regime station
by finished
London,
assessment
from 2019, our
static
regular
continued the
other
their
regime a committee tested
committee
each underground to
with
trapping
line
year,
and monitoring dust
impact.
including
tunnel
at
committee monitor
of
these
including
TfL readings
2019, staff,
staff,
the various
between
platform
and
employer, and
the update
cleaners
its
cleaning levels
the
TfL trialling
and
SE1
of
completed
trial
latest environment.
trials to airborne
Initial impact, a
of
any
application workplace
will
or
regardless
the TfL conducting
new
recommends
asks
monitor
by 2AA
airborne survey stations. the
the
where
preventing
can on
later
track,
Barons
also
a
outstanding staff.
are
latest MAYOR completed results
regime.
63
and results
methodology
similar
sections
to
committee
adoption
TfL
that be •
particulates
expected per
trial this
to
a
the
ensure
other
and
the
used
and scientific respirable
trial of dust will
The
Court
of
(taken
cent.
assess
on
further TfL
year.
a methodology
station
their
and results a
50
of specialist
within
determine
the to of
a that
committee levels dust
non-TIL
provides
of and
the
clean
metres
Page 157 Page that
to if
a OF establish
containing
results
the
employer. in
was
Bakerloo
any very
at research
guidance
the
be
suppressant personnel dust
of September
all
Bakerloo
train
Earl’s
in
ground-level, exposure
TfL
on
subsequently available
the
new
LONDON
cases encapsulation
station trolley-based
powerful
either
how
exposure
staff
sections from
on
cabins.
updates
dust
provides
Court
dust
asks
standards
line
into
Tube
the regarding
where
best
line.
are side.
of
members exposure
201
any
suppressant
show
by
staff
formula Tube
stations, that
entire
trolley-based •
Static
ABM
not
to of
Dust
As levels
spring
london.gov.uk
which
This 9),
on
little
trials
put
as
the
incorporate
a
part
spray, comfortable
are
TIL should
Dust
showing
the limits vacuum
Victoria
cleaning
reduction
at
healthy air
was
in
is
post-clean,
Bakerloo
levels or
adopted.
2020.
which
working is
source,
of
provides
being
conducted
sampling
place.
and status
no
currently
trial
which
shown
for
the
be
vacuum
platform
for
line,
a
its
Following
successfully regime,
staff underground
a
on
these
Bakerloo
conducted.
reduction
in monitored
enhancing
line,
wearing
workplace
cleaning, effect.
aims
of •
to
in
the
dust
is
and
to
an
020
to being
the
on
the
have
also
which
cleaner methodologies
assess
Waterloo
to
update duties
Tube
in
the levels, station
This
7983
an
enhanced
line
reduce
a undertaken
December
of
designed limited
reduced
personal
its
dust
included
the
Dust
35
work,
as
are on
£60 and
4000
on
staff
&
per
the
dust Yours get
I
Sadiq
Mayor
hope
City
in
sincerely,
touch.
the
Khan
of
Hall,
London
information
London,
provided
SEJ
2AA
MAYOR
is
useful.
•
mayorlondon.gov.uk
If
you Page 158 Page
OF .
have
LONDON
further
questions,
•
london.gov.uk
please
do
•
020
not
hesitate
7983
4000
to Agenda Item 10
Subject: COVID-19 and London’s Environment
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 20 July 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 The Committee will review the delivery of the Mayor of London’s environmental policies, in light of the impact of COVID-19.
1.2 The Committee will hear from the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, Shirley Rodrigues, and other GLA officers.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the Committee notes the report as background to putting questions to the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy and notes the subsequent discussion.
2.2 That the Committee delegates authority to the Chair, in consultation with party Group Lead Members, to agree any output arising from the discussion.
3. Background
3.1 The COVID-19 pandemic is intimately linked with the global state of the environment. Since the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, spread across the globe, public health figures have warned that human activity and its impact on the environment is increasing the risk of pandemics.1
3.2 Major cities in Europe, including London, and cities around the world, are preparing for life after COVID-19, with several environmental initiatives being rolled out to ensure public safety and climate change. Two new boards have been established to oversee London’s recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The establishment of the London Transition Board and London Recovery Board were announced on 22 May 2020.2
3.3 The Committee will consider the impact of COVID-19 on the following, and other changes, experienced from the start of the pandemic, on London’s environment, and subsequently, on the Mayor of London’s environmental programmes.
1 WFYI: How Climate Change Increases Our Risk For Pandemics, 24 March 2020 2 Plans announced for London’s COVID-19 recovery, 22 May 2020
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 159
Air quality 3.4 The European Health Alliance has warned that those living in polluted cities are more at risk from COVID-19 than those in less polluted cities.3 There is evidence to suggest that COVID-19 causes secondary pulmonary fibrosis, and other associated structural pulmonary damage. The British Lung Foundation reports that two million people in the UK with respiratory conditions, such as asthma, have reported reduced symptoms during the lockdown.4
3.5 The City of London reported a significant improvement in air quality as traffic reduced due to the lockdown imposed. Since the beginning of lockdown, Nitrogen dioxide levels have reduced by around 35% in the Square Mile.5 When compared to the average reading in 1 January 2020, the air in May 2020 was cleaner by over a third.
Aviation in and around London 3.6 The UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) forecast that COVID-19 will cause greater disruption to flights than the SARS outbreak of 2003. This was due to an influx of flight cancellations, and the impact on the air travel market in the Asia Pacific region, which is the largest aviation market.6 The aviation industry warned that no amount of cost-cutting or capacity reduction will compensate for the “extraordinary decline in demand” for air travel that is expected.7 As a result of this, many airlines have called for an exemption from a range of taxes to provide immediate interim relief by reducing the operational costs of airlines. In contrast, the reduction in air traffic has been greeted with overwhelming positivity by those who live near airports on flight paths.8
Access to green space and water security 3.7 During the lockdown, significant interest has been paid to the importance of access to green space. In particular, it has been noted that lockdown measures impacted upon deprived people in London the most. Analysis showed that people in deprived areas have less access to gardens or other green spaces.9 This analysis is based on the findings that a third of all land in the wealthiest 10% of London wards comprised private gardens, whilst the poorest 10%, just over a fifth comprised garden space. These findings combined with higher population density in the poorest deciles suggest that the poorest parts of London have less green space with more people sharing it. This trend is repeated with regards to access to public parks and green spaces. The proportion of public green space was an average 35% in the richest wards of London, compared to 25% in the most deprived.10
3.8 April 2020, whilst spent in lockdown, was nevertheless the sunniest April on record. This invariably meant that April in the UK was unseasonably warm and dry. This is of concern to water security. Especially as any disruption to water supplies during the COVID-19 epidemic has potentially lethal consequences. On 19 March 2020, a burst pipe caused Thames Water to suspend or disrupt water supply for approximately 25,000 people. In particular, concerns were raised as to how people could comply with the Government’s COVID-19 guidelines on regular hand washing without a regular and safe supply of water.
3 European Health Alliance, Coronavirus threat greater for polluted cities, March 2020 4 British Lung Foundation, Nearly 2 million people with lung conditions notice improved symptoms as a result of drop in air pollution, 4 June 2020 5 City of London, Air pollution in the City of London drops by a third since COVID-19 lockdown, May 2020 6 Brunel University: COVID19: The impact on aviation and what we can do about it 1 May 2020 7 Ibid 8 Ibid 9 Guardian: Coronavirus park closures hit BAME and poor Londoners most 10 April 2020 10 Ibid Page 160
Waste management and energy 3.9 According to data by Suez, consumers stockpiling at the beginning of the lockdown led to a 70% increase in tins and cans in mid-April.11 Glass waste also increased as more beer and wine was consumed at home. However, there was a sharp decline in the use of office photocopy paper due to office closures. As people are at home, households have been producing nearly 20% more rubbish than usual over the lockdown period, commercial waste has reduced by around 50% due to closed businesses.12
3.10 Energy consumption during the lockdown, especially in London, was around 10% lower than usual. On Sunday 5 April, this led to many Londoners being paid to use energy. On 5 April, windfarms contributed approximately 40% of the UK’s electricity, and solar contributed nearly a fifth. Fossil fuels, conversely, contributed less than 15% of electricity generated on that day. This surge in renewable energy resulted in “the lowest price for day-ahead prices for energy in a decade.” Households using the Agile Octopus energy tariff on Saturday 3 April were contacted to inform them they would be paid 0.22p-3.3p per kWh. Octopus Energy hailed this as a success, saying of the Agile tariff that: “It tracks wholesale energy prices and passes them on to customers so that when the grid is offering negatively priced green energy those people with a smart meter and on our agile tariff can benefit.”13
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 The Committee has invited Shirley Rodrigues, Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy to this meeting. Other GLA officers may also be in attendance at this meeting.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There is no financial implication to the GLA arising from this report
List of appendices to this report: None. Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Anastassia Beliakova, Assistant Director, Scrutiny and Investigations Telephone: 07840 649320 E-mail: [email protected]
11 Financial Times, Lockdown leaves UK waste collectors feeling the pinch, 3 June 2020 12 Financial Times, Lockdown leaves UK waste collectors feeling the pinch, 3 June 2020 13 Energy Live News: UK households paid to use electricity during Covid-19 lockdown 9 April 2020 Page 161 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 162 Agenda Item 11
Subject: Environment Committee Work Programme
Report to: Environment Committee
Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 20 July 2020
This report will be considered in public
1. Summary
1.1 This report sets out proposals for the Environment Committee in regards to its work programme.
2. Recommendation
2.1 That the Committee notes its work programme as agreed under delegated authority by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee on 13 May 2020.
3. Background
3.1 The Committee receives a report monitoring the progress of its work programme at each meeting.
4. Issues for Consideration
4.1 The Committee’s work programme was formally approved under delegated authority by the Chair of the GLA Oversight Committee on 13 May 2020 and has been designed to proactively examine issues of interest arising from the COVID-19 crisis. Future meetings of the Committee will be agreed by the London Assembly in due course.
Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy 4.2 In July 2020, the Committee will hold a question and answer session with the Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy. During the meeting, the Committee will review the delivery of the Mayor’s environmental policies in light of the impact of COVID-19.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee has the power to do what is recommended in the report.
City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 163
6. Financial Implications
6.1 There are no financial implications to the Greater London Authority arising from this report.
List of appendices to this report: None.
Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Anastassia Beliakova, Assistant Director, Scrutiny and Investigations Telephone: 07840 649320 E-mail: [email protected]
Page 164