Sustainability Committee

Inquiry into Carbon Reduction in Wales: Residential Carbon Reduction

Response from the Centre for Alternative Technology

Peter Harper
Head of Research and Innovation
Centre for Alternative Technology

October 19, 2007

Dear Mick

Thank you for your invitation to submit evidence to the Committee.

I’ll get right down to answering the substantive questions.

Cunning Meters

"Cunning meters” was not in the main body of the text but in some rough notes that, to my dismay, I now notice were inadvertently left on the end! Smart meters are useful because they tell the power companies about consumption patterns, help detect faults, improve billing, and give better feedback to customers. The kinds of things I have in mind go well beyond smart meters, would both inform and control, and take advantage of the increasing cheapness and affordability of ICT and wireless communication. They also depend to some extent on increasing 'smartness’ in appliances, with sensors and wireless transmitters. But this is coming. They would not just be for electricity; they could cover space and water heating, perhaps water usage as well.

The 'informing’ part would be a large display in an appropriate open place, usually the kitchen. Not under the stairs! This would show what was being used at any one time, the accumulated energy for that day, month, quarter, and how it compares with various things (it could be toggled) say, the same period last year, or typical for this kind of household, or a sustainable target. Of course it would also remind you about the costs and the potential savings, and householders will become much more attentive when and if fuel costs double, treble, quintuple...as they well could. The meter would know what was on, and it could even make suggestions and remind you about things

>>blip! Fridge is consuming more electricity than it should. Has a door been left open?

Giving householders short-term feedback is a very powerful way of raising their awareness

The 'controlling’ part would mostly be turning things on and off remotely, according to a schedule that householders would set for themselves, or (more likely) choose from a menu. For example heating and lights and perhaps other appliances in a some rooms would go off if there had been no activity there for a given length of time, or perhaps just adjusted according to the season. The unit would be able to learn your habits and tune itself (and you) to minimise emissions with the least inconvenience. However—this is an important point—you would be able to tell the device "I don’t mind inconvenience; I don’t mind if the washing machine gets turned off in the middle of the night: I am willing to keep my loads under 1kW for the next 12 hours” and it would then cut a fantastic deal with the power company and reduce tour costs by 80%. The unit could be called from a mobile phone and told to do things, like turn the heating on. Or off. Some standard schedules would attract credits from the supply companies and could substantially reduce utility bills. It would make it much easier to be clean and green if you wanted to. If you didn’t it would simply cost you an arm and a leg. Your choice!

The Planning System and Devolved Powers

Am not an expert on the details of devolved powers, but it strikes me that in principle the planning system can be used intelligently to reduce carbon emissions through an agreed range of conditionalities, i.e., carrots and sticks which local authority planners are entitled to apply, provided they comply with WAG planning policies. The problem is that the policies enshrined in Planning Policy Wales, MIPPS, and the Technical Advice Notes do not go far enough, yet. Thus, for example, it is hard to see how WAG can deliver on its bold call for 'Zero Carbon buildings by 2011’ without calling in every single planning application that does not meet the 'BRERAM Excellent’ standards and even more exacting standards in 2009-10 . WAG has to set a clear lead with an overarching policy document supplemented by one or more new TANs that would spell out the requirements in detail. The Local Authorities would then set the appropriate conditions, knowing that the Planning Inspectorate in Cardiff were watching with considerable interest! A certain amount of additional training and professional development would be desirable for local planners and building inspectors.

It would be much the same for the entire suite of ZeroCarbon Wales policies, were they to prove necessary. But frankly, if that does indeed turn out to be the case the entire UK planning system would probably be overhauled, with more rigorous central control and rather fewer consultation exercises.

That New Settlements Should Address the 'Entire Spectrum’ of Households’ Org Emissions

This remark arises from the observation that while many developments succeed in delivering low-energy houses, the overall emissions of the households remain high, generally because for example transport, employment, leisure and waste have not been considered. It is understandable that developers do not consider these part of their responsibility, but they should all be considered in the planning framework, as they are in some of the voluntary eco-building-standard schemes.

'Suburbia’ or low-density semi-rural settlements are a strong default preference for large sections of the population, but that is partly because the preference has not been creatively challenged. It should be, and by the principal planning authorities, not simply by Third Sector eccentrics. Effective transport alternatives should be an integral part of the master plan for a new settlement. Opportunities for employment within the settlement should be an important consideration in design choices. Commercial, professional, civil and personal links within the settlement should be maximised. The several "Rs” of the waste hierarchy should be optimised through design of kitchens and collective facilities.

It is of course desirable to 'design in’ the systems that will make low-carbon living easy, even automatic. But in any conceivable future a zero-carbon state will not be achieved without willing consent, co-operation and the acquisition of at least some unaccustomed habits and skills. That could be an important aspect of our suggested scheme for mass-renovation of poorly-functioning houses, where substantial groups of people are temporarily housed in purpose-built low-carbon houses while their own houses are being improved. During this disruptive period special classes could be held to teach them how to get the most out of their new eco-homes (for example how to operate a Cunning Meter), and indeed offer training in other aspects of low-carbon living, which could be an important element of future-proofing a household.

Some General Remarks

Most of our thinking is spelled out in the written submission and the ZeroCarbon Britain report. From an everyday perspective the implications are verging on the unthinkable. The costs would be enormous. Crudely, if Stern thought 60% in 45 years would cost 1-2% of GDP per year, 100% in 20 years is at least 10% of GDP. This would be hard. It could only conceivably work if the economy (and of course the planning system) were completely re-jigged on a kind of war footing. That is only likely to come about after a series of very serious and unambiguously climate- related disasters that convince nearly everybody that it’s for real. By that time of course it might be too late.

What we are proposing is essentially an insurance policy. Most households spend a few percent of their GDP on insurance of various kinds, as cover against unlikely but serious events. We would like to see relatively small sums set aside now to plan for what it would mean if we had suddenly to switch to the 'war economy’. In fact there is a close analogy with the state of opinion in the UK in the late 1930s, when the possibility of war was widely discussed, and its implications informally 'rehearsed’ across the nation, even though actual changes of attitude and behaviour remained latent. This rendered thinkable the previously unthinkable. When war became inevitable the newly-thinkable became acceptable in reality with relatively little trauma, and the rigours of the war economy were borne with fortitude and a new sense of solidarity because there was no alternative and we were all in the same boat. It’s something like this that we have in mind, a kind of parallel what-if universe that is constantly being probed, modelled, attacked, doubted, elaborated, fictionalised, joked about, and semi-planned-for, and its implications widely explored. It means that in the event we have to execute it in reality, we will at least be psychologically prepared for very rapid changes.

I hope this helps wrap up our submission satisfactorily.

With all best wishes
Peter