08 Nov 2011
The Environment Agency today unveiled a new league table ranking 2,000 organisations according to how they manage energy use under the Carbon Reduction Commitment. BusinessGreen runs down the reactions from key industry players.
Environment Agency director of environment and business Ed Mitchell was "very encouraged" that 60 per cent of CRC organisations had taken steps to improve their energy management.
"The UK needs its high street shops, major businesses, councils, government departments and other big energy users to use less electricity to help meet tough carbon reduction targets."
A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change congratulated those organisations performing well, including her own department, which came joint-first.
"It's clearly a difficult time for British business, but it's encouraging that so many companies realise energy efficiency can help cut their bills and improve their bottom line.
"The Performance League Table will help organisations compare performance with competitors as well as gain recognition for their efforts from consumers and investors."
Paul Eggleton, energy and carbon manager at O2, was pleased his company ranked in the top five per cent of the table.
"We have been addressing our carbon impacts for a number of years. Although our carbon emissions remain our biggest impact on the environment, we continue to assess how we can reduce these through the use of new technologies and investment."
James Ramsay, head of CRC at Carbon Clear, said the results show there is still "huge room for improvement".
"This is the first time UK companies have been forced to disclose publicly their carbon data, and the results are really quite extraordinary. The fact that more than 40 per cent – including many big brand names – failed to score a single point is a clear indicator that they are not even monitoring their energy data."
David Symons, director at consultancy WSP Environment & Energy, warned that the 800 lowest-ranked organisations were wasting money.
"If all the 800 companies at the bottom of the league table [installed the simplest of automatic meter readers], they would together cut UK carbon emissions by 100,000 tonnes, cut £12m off their energy bills and avoid having to buy £1.2m of CRC allowances."
Paul Stepan, senior consultant at Camco UK, said the league tables would reignite boardroom level interest in the CRC.
"The fact that the Environment Agency website crashed this morning shows the level of interest that organisations have in the CRC, so despite the criticism it is having an impact in terms of raising interest."
Ian Foddering, chief technology officer at Cisco UKI, said some organisations that invest more and better technology to ensure long-term carbon reduction will be penalised because they have increased their use of electricity or power consumption in the short term.
"This year, government will need to look more holistically at organisations' longer term environmental impact in order to get a clearer picture of our collective progress against the UK's 2020 targets."
Caroline Pitt, director of carbon services at Utilyxv, said the organisations at the bottom of the table will now be asked some searching questions.
"The carbon reduction journey of participants does not end here. In future years, organisations will be under more scrutiny on whether they move up or down the league table. That means it is essential for participants to be fully prepared for compliance in this the second year, so they can concentrate on using less energy rather than the paperwork."
Rebecca Seabury, carbon analyst at energy consultancy Inenco, said a lack of investment could see many organisations' league table positions tumble next year.
"In the current economic climate, as we move into year two, unless investment plans change, it's hard to see energy consumption falling dramatically.
"This will mean a poor performance in the CRC tables, and with staff costs falling because of redundancies, and energy usage unchanged, CRC League Table performance will also be poor. Unless there's the chance to invest in energy-saving measures, league table positions are likely to tumble."
Paul King, chief executive at UK-Green Building Council, said the table showed the need for sector-specific data.
"The CRC League Table is well intentioned and could be an effective means of driving performance, but it doesn't compare like with like.
"That's why, for the property sector, we need to see a rollout of Display Energy Certificates showing actual energy use for both landlords and tenants, so we can see who is doing a good job of managing their carbon emissions, and who is not doing their bit to reduce the impact of the UK's gas-guzzling buildings."
Vincent Neate, head of KPMG UK Climate Change & Sustainability practice, said the table was a good indicator of those organisations taking steps to manage carbon.
"As well as absorbing the financial implications of the CRC, I expect many organisations will begin a process of peer comparisons as a result of the league table publication.
"Whether this stimulates the desired action remains to be seen, but we've certainly seen some participants already responding to the financial impacts of the scheme and we'd expect the reputational impact, at least in the board room, to also be a motivator for some participants."
LATEST STORIES ABOUT CARBON ACCOUNTING
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
Market has failed to provide sufficient new capacity to deal with increase in demand, energy minister warns
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
Service provider builds a compact, energy-efficient and scalable IT infrastructure
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Unbalanced Comment - poorly compiled
This article is very poorly balanced. Essentially the reliance on EAM to rank performance is crackers. The EA were unable or unwilling to tell participants how the league table was to be compiled up to April this year. It is a case of if you throw money at AMR or the carbon trust , then you get a good rating. It does not take into account performance and to maintain that it is reputational is completely unjustifiable. When I attended the "training session" the EA were unconvincing. The conclusions drawn by some of the interviewees are indicative of ignorance rather than incisive insight.
Posted by APS, 10 Nov 2011
Unrepresentative and unfair
We are in the bottom 800 but only because we decided not to pay for the carbon standard once the recycling element was removed. We have reduced our CO2 emissions by 7% in the last year and have been implementing energy saving measures for 5 years, hopefully in phase 2, when they remove the penalty for CHP, we will be up where we belong.
Posted by Rose, 09 Nov 2011
Not worth the paper they are written on
With 100% weighting given to the EAM this table does not show who has performed best at all this year, so how the contributors in your article can make such radical statements is beyond me. Some of the companies at the bottom of the table could have reduced comsumption through major investment but we cannot see that in this table. Only when we start to see all three metrics introduced will it be any use for throwing stones at poor performers or putting those at the top of the table on a pedastool.
Posted by Noel Ferguson, 08 Nov 2011