Sustainable Pathways to Low Carbon Energy (SPLiCE): Supplier workshop

1. Sustainable Pathways to Low Carbon Energy (SPLiCE): Supplier workshop Davinder Lail Climate Change Team Defra

2. Objectives for the day • Clarify the programme’s objectives to prospective suppliers. • Discuss feasibility and delivery options to inform the specification • Clarify the commissioning process and next steps

3. Agenda • 10:00 Welcome and objectives • 10:10 Presentation on SPLiCE research programme • 10:45 Questions and discussion • 11:30 Break • 11:40 Overview of tender process, questions and next steps • 12:30 Lunch • 13:00 Opportunity for 1 to 1 discussions

4. Overview of presentation • Policy context and the need for SPLiCE • The research questions to be answered • The potential scope • The potential outputs • Feasibility and delivery challenges • The potential process • Next steps

5. Context: UK and EU legislation requires substantial decarbonisation during next decades • Climate Change Act – 80% emission cut by 2050 • EU emission reduction targets • EU Renewable Energy Directive – 15% by 2020 • EU Fuel Quality Directive – 6% cut by 2020

6. Context: meeting climate goals will mean massive changes in energy generation and use Dramatic increase in energy and resource efficiency Complete decarbonisation of electricity generation and substantial decarbonisation of transport and heat

7. Research need: Change of that scale has many potential impacts, both positive and negative

8. Research need: we need confidence that decarbonisation needed can actually be delivered acceptably “A study should be carried out into the potential impacts of the growing number of wind farms in Northumberland on the county’s vital tourism industry, it is claimed.” Are there maximum limits to particular types of infrastructure? Can all of the infrastructure needed actually be delivered through the planning system?

9. Research need: that means finding the best balance between competing tensions • An energy mix which properly balances the points in the triangle means we can: • Reassure the public that energy policy is acceptable. • Reduce the risk of sudden policy change undermining investor confidence. The policy “trilemma” Lowest cost decarbonisation Where to position the energy mix? Secure & reliable supply Minimise wider impacts

10. Research questions: • How can decision makers access digestible and comprehensive information about the impacts of energy options to inform decisions about future policies and measures? • How can we compare the diverse impacts of energy options in order to make choices about a sustainable future energy mix? • How can the public be a core part of the debate about future energy choices and potential compromises?

11. Scope: to answer the questions this needs to be very wide • Energy supply options • Energy demand options • Realistic technologies / options within 2050 timeframe • Environmental impacts • Social impacts • Economic impacts • UK footprint – domestically and internationally

12. Possible outputs: is some sort of comparison system or framework for impacts feasible? Confusion Confusion Is the impact of offshore wind on marine mammals worse than the effect of biofuels on food prices? Confusion Confusion Confusion Confusion Confusion Clarity Too many options?

13. Possible outputs: Can we create a repository of information that is accessible & comprehensive?

14. Feasibility: doing this will be challenging as impacts are numerous and complex... Biomass impacts air quality market effects employment production transport processing combustion land use options food security and cost soil & water, flooding, biodiversity

15. Feasibility: ... and many impacts are interrelated and cumulative Water and energy extraction in a river system Nuclear Power thermal kinetic kinetic kinetic thermal Tidal Barrage water Hydropower energy Pumped Storage Fossil Fuel with CCS

16. Feasibility: here are a few more questions to grapple with Which impacts should be within scope? How to analyse and organise vast amounts of existing research? How to compare widely different impacts? How to choose which gaps to fill? How to present findings in a useable way? What’s the best delivery model? How much will it cost and how long will it take? How to manage the programme well? How to get the right team together?

17. Process: how do we broach these challenges? • SPLiCE Phase 1: scoping and feasibility • SPLiCE Phase 2: filling research gaps and presenting outputs, developing a knowledge gateway, designing a comparison framework for impacts, investigate how to engage with the public • SPLiCE Phase 3: additional on-going research and maintenance

18. Process: Phase 1 needs to demonstrate a clear delivery process Phase 1 objectives include: • Identify and prioritise research needed to fill data gaps on impacts – for delivery in Phase 2 • Draw up a prototype for presenting information on impacts that can be easily accessed and understood by policy makers and public • Develop prototype for a framework for comparing differing impacts to enable choices to be made. • Draft specification and recommended process for Phase 2 to deliver the items above.

19. Process: a range of skills is needed • Multidisciplinary expertise and analysis (energy, social, economic, environmental, valuation, public engagement etc.) • Cross discipline working • Organisational and project management skills • Ergonomic software and system design and presentation • Knowledge exchange, building networks of experts to call on and partnership working

20. Next steps: • Make a judgment on feasibility: need your input • Finalise the specification for Phase 1 • Go out to tender before Christmas • Let the contract in February • 1 year to complete Phase 1 • Decision on scope and process of future phases in spring 2015

21. Thank you