SAN Knowledge Exchange

Context Setting

Anna Godleman, Portfolio Lead for Sustainability at the London Borough of Barnet and Vice Chair of the LGA Sustainability Action Network, introduced the topic of community energy and set out the purpose and expectations of the session. A baselining exercise was conducted to understand the current levels of experience and confidence within the session on community energy projects. 

Presentation 

Ellen Jennings, Senior Sustainability Officer at the London Borough of Barnet, introduced Barnet’s journey with supporting community energy projects over the last twelve months. As a London borough, Barnet’s approach to community energy has focused on urban areas and suitable technology, such as solar.  

Community energy is about residents understanding, generating, using, owning and saving energy in their communities and putting people at the heart of that, with an emphasis on community ownership. There is no single model for community energy and projects can range from promoting energy efficiency in a local area, such as thermal imaging and energy audits for homes and community buildings to supporting investment in the installation of solar or renewable projects. It can help to tackle challenges such as the cost of living, upfront costs of renewable energy and address the low skill levels surrounding new technologies such as heat pump installation. A focus on education and engagement is key as more people can engage with community energy.  

Ellen outlined the mechanics of community energy groups, which are usually set up as a community benefit society or a cooperative. They usually begin by doing engagement work on where potential projects might be and then raise funding for a particular project. Once funding is secured, a project is delivered. Once this is running, it generates electricity leading to a saving for the building owner. Profits must first go back to the investors on the interest that has been agreed, which is usually about three to four per cent. Anything above that generates a community fund which can then be put into other projects or another solar installation. 

The presentation went on to discuss Barnet’s Citizen’s Assembly in 2023. Community energy was discussed and identified as a good route to help with the costs of installing solar. They then reached out to Community Energy London who were very supportive of all their work throughout. A resident reached out to ask if there was a community energy group in Barnet to join, and upon discovering there wasn’t, this resident set up Community Energy Barnet.  

Context Setting

At an open drop in session for the Sustainability Action Network (SAN) on Wednesday 19 June 2024, members were asked for further insights from their roles about the priorities for their council net zero and sustainability work and how the SAN can further support members to meet these priorities.

Grace Abel, LGA Programme Manager, introduced the session and highlighted the importance of this type of meeting to discuss net zero strategies and action for local authorities. Colleagues from Hertfordshire approached the LGA to discuss carbon offsetting as a topic for an LGA Knowledge Exchange. This session aimed to start a conversation about offsetting in the context of local authorities and to learn from the experiences of other areas.

Helen Burridge, HCCSP Manager, Hertfordshire Climate Change and Sustainability Partnership, and Flavie Whetman Carbon Programme Manager, Hertfordshire County Council, provided a context setting presentation to introduce attendees to the concept of carbon offsetting. They stated that all local authorities in Hertfordshire would likely have excess emissions by target dates and they are considering offsetting as an option. They highlighted that currently there was no consistent national framework or approach for local authorities to follow and suggested that local authorities could begin to work together to develop a streamlined and optimised approach to offsetting.

They highlighted that in Hertfordshire there is a gross estimated excess of emissions between 25 and 30 kilotons of CO2e. They noted that high-quality carbon offsets can cost around £120 per tonne on the international market, which could lead to a total cost of over £3,000,000 for Hertfordshire. There is concern about the potential for duplication, contradiction, and reputational damage if local authorities were to seek to offset their emissions independently. This emphasised the importance of a coordinated, aligned, and optimised approach across the public and private sectors to ensure reliable, consistent, and high-quality offsetting at scale.

The presentation went on to discuss the different types of carbon offsetting markets and their potential relevance for local authorities. They highlighted the challenges and risks associated with voluntary carbon markets, including the potential for double counting and greenwashing. They also explored the different ways that local authorities could use offsetting to achieve their net zero targets, such as offsetting their own residual emissions or facilitating offsetting projects within their area. Finally, they raised questions about the structure, measurement, verification, and monitoring of offsetting initiatives, and the potential impact on local authorities' resources and reputations.

Section 1: Establishing understanding of carbon offsetting

To kick off the discussion, the audience was asked, “To what extent has your council looked into offsetting?” to baseline the general understanding and appetite for carbon offsetting. Over 50% of respondents indicated that they have explored offsetting to a small extent followed by 30% who stated they had ‘to a moderate extent’ with the remaining audience stating that had not considered it at all. This quick poll demonstrated the varying degrees to which local government colleagues had considered and explored carbon offsetting in their climate, sustainability and net zero programmes.

Section 1.1: Open discussion on offsetting plausibility, risks, and costs

Rachel Toresen-Owuor from Local Partnerships facilitated the discussion, focusing on the questions posed in the context setting. The first prompt question asked attendees to offer thoughts on the plausibility, risks, and costs of carbon offsetting.

One delegate mentioned that, like many other local authorities in the country, their council is facing financial difficulties that are hindering their decarbonisation efforts. Costs of net zero initiatives as well as potential costs and revenue generation of offsetting therefore made this conversation relevant but highlighted a need for cautious ambition. 

The next delegate discussed the importance of credibility in offsetting initiatives. They mentioned that they were currently developing an offsetting policy that would outline acceptable practices and principles for using offsets. However, they stressed that focusing on offsetting should not detract from the ongoing efforts to mitigate and reduce emissions.

The next attendee discussed the need for clarity and understanding of the basics of carbon offsetting, including the differences between carbon neutrality and net zero. They highlighted the financial pressures faced by local authorities and the importance of prioritising decarbonisation programmes. They outlined the importance of calculating residual emissions accurately to justify spending on offsetting projects by considering their local benefits. They raised concerns about managing risks associated with national or international credits and the importance of monitoring and verification.

One delegate highlighted the importance of having consistent definitions for carbon offsetting terms. They expressed concern that local authorities might develop their own policies and approaches, only to find that they do not align with future national frameworks.

One delegate emphasised focusing on adaptation efforts, particularly in areas vulnerable to extreme weather events. They argued that while offsetting can be a valuable tool, it should not distract from the immediate need to adapt to climate change and address the concerns of local communities. They highlighted the potential challenges of prioritising offsetting projects over adaptation initiatives in areas where communities may be facing pressing issues related to climate change impacts.

The next attendee agreed with the previous statement about using offsetting as a last resort after exhausting other carbon reduction options. They acknowledged that there may be certain emissions that councils cannot control and emphasised the importance of considering local impacts and potential co-benefits when investing in offsetting projects. They suggested that collaboration with other councils could maximise the benefits of offsetting, ensuring that investments contribute to adaptation, mitigation, health, and wellbeing.

The next contributor mentioned that their organisation was considering offsetting their emissions through local initiatives like home retrofitting or tree planting within the borough. They stated that there was a consensus among the corporate management team that any offsetting funds should be spent within the borough boundaries.

The next point focused on the drivers for offsetting, which could include local nature recovery strategies and other initiatives that may not be directly related to carbon neutrality. They emphasised the importance of highlighting the multiple benefits of these projects, such as public health benefits, to encourage their implementation and support. The contributor also acknowledged the financial constraints faced by local authorities and expressed hope that the core benefits of offsetting projects would enable them to be implemented despite limited budgets.

The last contributor followed up on this point to stress the importance of considering co-benefits when making the case for offsetting projects. They mentioned the concept of additionality, which requires offsetting projects to not count activities that would have happened anyway: where do, for example, government grant schemes for residents (that local authorities can choose to facilitate) fit into this metric? They highlighted the need for clear policies and communication within organisations to ensure consistent approaches to offsetting that avoid unintended consequences. 

Section 2: What does good look like? 

The facilitator moved the discussion to focus on what good carbon offsetting could look like within local government. Chamu Kuppuswamy from the University of Hertfordshire offered views from research on the concept of carbon offsetting and its importance in achieving carbon neutrality. 

Dr Kappuswamy referenced the challenges of defining acceptable levels of residual emissions and the need to consider the principle of additionality in offsetting projects highlighting the importance of fostering a culture of deep decarbonisation and the potential benefits of local insetting initiatives. They emphasised the need for further research and discussion on the topic of additionality to address the complexities involved in identifying truly additional offsetting projects.

The next colleagues shared details on research they conducted on various standards and principles related to offsetting and identified key points that were important to their organisations. These points included additionality, double counting, and leakage. The local authority subsequently developed a policy that incorporated these key points as criteria for any offsetting projects. They shared this approach that could be helpful for other organisations working on developing offsetting policies. Those draft principles were: 

1. Offsetting is the option of last resort (prioritise reductions first).

2. Removals of carbon from the atmosphere are favoured over avoidance (because these are more robust).

3. Local projects are favoured (makes monitoring easier + supports the local economy).

4. Only additional projects contribute to formal offsetting (you can't count things you were legally required to do anyway).

5. Only offsets that do not result in emissions leakage and deliver permanent removals/avoidance are used.

6. Transparency and reporting and a robust calculation methodology are vital.

Section 3: If we are looking at responsibly offsetting, when do we do it?

In the last section, the discussion focused on timing and measuring offsetting. One attendee discussed the challenges of timing with offsetting schemes, particularly for projects like woodland and peatland restoration, which can take 10 to 15 years to generate verifiable credits. They suggested considering pre-purchasing carbon credits to ensure availability by the time target dates are reached. 

The next delegate emphasised the importance of focusing on scope one and two emissions, which are within the control of local authorities. They mentioned that scope three emissions, such as procurement, employee commuting, and business travel, can also be significant and should be considered. However, they noted that when seeking verification for carbon neutrality or net zero, it is important to justify any exclusions of emissions categories and demonstrate that they are truly beyond the control of the organisation.

One council mentioned that their measurements cover scope one and two emissions, including gas, electricity, fuel use, and part of the fleet. They also included part of scope three emissions, such as business travel and electricity transmission distribution losses. They noted that there are different approaches to accounting for these emissions, including well-to-tank emissions. They mentioned that they are conducting a separate piece of work on scope three emissions, which is outside of their 2030 carbon neutrality target.

Concluding thoughts:

Grace Abel concluded the Knowledge Exchange session by thanking all participants for their contributions and highlighting the key takeaways from the discussion. With over 73 people attending at its peak, the importance of collaboration and knowledge sharing was emphasised across councils on the topic of offsetting. It was noted that while definitive answers were not reached, the session facilitated valuable discussions and provided a starting point for further exploration. Colleagues in Hertfordshire were keen to continue the discussion: next steps include their convening an informal offsetting officers’ group to consider sharing viable approaches for local authorities to consider taking forward. Those interested should contact Flavie Whetman for more information. 

Shared Links & Resources:

• Shropshire Council – Biochar from Pyrolysis Project Committee Paper
• Anthesis – Area Based Insetting Framework Report & Rethinking Offsetting for LAs Blog
• Carbon Neutrality PAS 2060 is being replaced by ISO14068 ISO 14068-1:2023 - Climate change management – Part 1: Carbon neutrality
• Camden Climate Alliance – Camden Retrofit Credits Scheme
• HACT & PNZ Carbon – Retrofit Credits Programme
• University of Hertfordshire - A study into Decarbonisation and Carbon Offsetting in Hertfordshire
• APSE - The Relevance and Legitimacy of Carbon Offsetting in Local Government
• Natural England - Carbon Storage and Sequestration by Habitat 2021 (NERR094) Report