Trends and drivers of end-use energy demand and the implications for managing energy in food supply chains: Synthesising insights from the social sciences

AbstractThe Climate Change Act commits the UK Government to an ambitious 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050; this paper provides a consumer focused framework to devise, inform and evaluate potential interventions to reduce energy demand and emissions in food supply chains. Adopting a Life cycle Assessment (LCA) framing we explore the relationship between production and consumption by reviewing trends in the food sector with implications for energy demand. Secondly, a multidisciplinary review of the literature on sustainable consumption is structured around the ISM (Individual, Social, Material Contexts) framework devised by Southerton et al., bringing insights from a range of theoretical perspectives. Combined, these frameworks complement LCA approaches to mapping and quantifying emissions hotspots in a supply chain in two ways.First, production and consumption must be considered with the ‘consumer’ interactive throughout, one of many factors affecting energy use at each stage, rather than restricted to the end of a supply chain. Second, when considering consumption patterns and how they might be changed, drawing on the insights of multiple disciplines allows for a fuller array of potential interventions to be identified. Given the complexity of the food system and the range of relevant sustainability goals, there are several areas in which the ‘preferred trajectories’ for ‘more sustainable’ consumption patterns are unclear, particularly where data on variation, causal relationships and longitudinal change is lacking. Technical and social understandings of ‘desirable’ change in the food sector must continue to be developed in parallel to achieve such challenging reductions in emissions

Consumer responses to a future UK food system

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to describe research exploring consumer responses to potential changes in food-related practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change.Design/methodology/approach– Six focus groups explored consumer responses to measures to intended to mitigate the emissions from, and adapt to the impacts of climate change. These included: meat reduction, greater reliance on seasonal British food, meal replacement tablets, laboratory grown meat, communal eating houses, genetically modified food and food waste. Practice theory provided the lens to interpret the changes to meanings, competences and materials associated with food consumption.Findings– Changes that could be assimilated within existing competencies were viewed more positively, with lack of competence a key barrier to accommodating change. At present, climate change and sustainability do not influence purchasing decisions. Policy measures delivering multiple benefits (“win-wins”), of which environmental performance may be one, stand an improved chance of establishing more sustainable practices than those focusing exclusively on environmental drivers.Originality/value– Awareness of the role of sustainable food systems in the context of anthropogenic climate change is growing. Whilst scientific and technological research explores methods for reducing emissions and building resilience in food supply chains to changes in climate, there is comparatively little study of how consumers perceive these proposed “solutions”. This research provides a comprehensive overview of consumer responses to potential changes in eating practices related to climate change mitigation and adaptation and is of value to policy makers, academics and practitioners across the food supply chain.</jats:sec

Price support allows communities to raise low-cost citizen finance for renewable energy projects

Community energy groups can raise citizen finance for renewable energy projects at lower interest rates than from commercial lenders, but they often depend on price guarantee schemes. Policies providing price stability and business model innovations are needed to realize the sector’s potential contribution to the zero-carbon energy transition

BEIS Call for Evidence - The Future for Small-scale Low-carbon Generation : Response from the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC)

This submission draws on two streams of work undertaken as part of the UKERC research programme. Firstly, one stream concerns community energy, and our responses on this topic draw primarily on data from the UKERC Financing Community Energy project. Secondly, it draws on a number of recent UKERC publications on electricity systems and networks

Financing Community Energy Case Studies : Edinburgh Community Solar Cooperative

This report presents the first of four case studies of UK community energy organisations conducted during 2018/19. These will later be included as part of a synthesis briefing alongside findings from a series of sectoral-level interviews. The case study makes use of a combination of qualitative (e.g. interviews, organisation reports) and quantitative (e.g. financial reports) data. Key summary lessons include: The ability of community energy organisations to raise community finance is underpinned by government subsidies (e.g. feed-in-tariff). By providing a long-term guaranteed revenue stream, they de-risk the energy project. Their removal presents investors with a less attractive proposition, potentially closing down an important stream of finance. Local authorities are a key facilitator of community energy projects. For example, they may purchase power from community energy organisations, as well as provide space for power generation. The latter is highly dependent on the extent to which the procurement process and council leadership values locally supplied, low-carbon energy from not-for-profit organisations. Intermediaries are a key provider of economic, technical, social and political capital to community energy organisations. A key example are project developers such as Energy4All. Choices around legal structure have an important bearing on the financing and governance of a community energy organisation, including the: * Extent to which 'community benefit' is incorporated into the legal entity. * Level and type of finance it can raise. * Degree of risk it exposes its investors to. * Way in which control is exerted over the organisation's strategic direction and who wields this power

Financing Community Energy Case Studies : Green Energy Mull

This report presents the second of four case studies of UK community energy organisations conducted during 2018/19. These will later be included as part of a synthesis briefing alongside a series of sector-level interviews. The case study makes use of a combination of qualitative (e.g. interviews, organisation reports) and quantitative (e.g. financial reports) data. Summary of key lessons: Government subsidy is the cornerstone to securing both community and private finance. By providing a substantial long-term guaranteed revenue stream, the FiT allowed GEM to raise community investment and further investment from commercial and state-backed lenders. Even with the FiT in place, sourcing commercial finance was challenging. In its absence, it is unlikely that commercial lenders will lend. The ability to raise community finance is dependent on the affluence and population density of a locality. Unable to raise all the finance it needed from the community of Mull, the organisation was forced to access more expensive loan finance. Communities present important test beds for innovation, but direct long-term benefits may not be forthcoming. In its role as a trusted local organisation, GEM demonstrated an important role for community energy in facilitating innovation, but the extent to which it has been able to benefit from this is questionable. Partnerships with public landowners are critical to project delivery. Forestry and Land Scotland made land available for use by GEM, which was critical to their hydro scheme. Without this the project could not have taken place

Financing Community Energy Case Studies : Brighton and Hove Energy Services (BHESCo)

This report presents the final of four case studies of UK community energy organisations conducted during 2018/19, which will later be included as part of a synthesis briefing alongside a series of sector-level interviews. The case study makes use of a combination of qualitative (e.g. interviews, organisation reports) and quantitative (e.g. financial reports) data. Summary of key lessons includes: Energy efficiency and heating services can constitute a core offering of community groups. Unlike many other community organisations, BHESCo has been able to develop a compelling value proposition, centred on delivering affordable comfort and warmth, through a combination of efficiency and generation measures. By employing a Pay As You Save model, it has unlocked a previously untapped revenue stream for communities, which importantly is less reliant on generation subsidies such as the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT). However, we find the model is limited in its ability to assist the fuel poor, who cannot be expected to share any cost savings generated, and tenants of rented properties where landlords are uninterested in investing in energy savings. Financing a serviced based model presents uncommon challenges in the community energy sector. Compared with other community energy groups, BHESCo’s investors must consider higher operating costs, on-going capital needs and a more complex offering, based on its business model rather than a singular asset. However, BHESCo has negotiated these challenges deftly and is open to alternative approaches, involving blended finance and working in consortia, as it explores potential larger scale projects. The complexity of BHESCo’s business model presents both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, its relative complexity makes the venture less dependent on any single technology, customer, revenue stream or subsidy (such as the FiT), versus most other community energy groups. This helps to insulate the organisation from market and policy shocks. On the other hand, the complexity of BHESCo’s business model and the novelty of its proposition mean it has taken time to mature as a venture. For a time, it relied strongly on grants and the commitment of its key founder and CEO. The adoption of the bona fide co-operative legal structure stems from both financial and ethical considerations. A co-operative model was adopted largely as a means of raising relatively low cost community shares. This was largely a reaction to a lack of affordable finance being offered to community-led energy efficiency oriented businesses like BHESCo, even from ethical investors. Beyond finance, the co-op model was also selected on ethical grounds. Specifically, the cooperative model's 'one shareholder-one vote' model provides a broader distribution of power versus the 'one share-one vote' model employed by companies limited by shares. Furthermore, the absence of an asset lock provides its citizen investors with the option that assets can be liquidated to pay back their investment