A league of their own

The first ‘green’ league table under the recently-introduced CRC scheme brought mixed fortunes for the 200 local authorities involved, writes Bill Chandler.

So, how did local authorities fare when the Environment Agency published the first ‘performance league table’ this month, ranking over 2,000 participants in the CRC (Carbon Reduction Commitment) Energy Efficiency Scheme?

CRC and the league table

Many readers will be painfully aware that the CRC scheme commenced in April 2010, affecting medium and large sized private sector and public sector organisations, including approximately 200 local authorities.

Since the Comprehensive Spending Review in October 2010 abandoned ‘recycling payments’ – under which the £1bn received each year from the sale of carbon allowances under the scheme would have been refunded to participants on a sliding scale depending on their position in the annual performance league table – CRC has effectively become a tax on carbon emissions.

The performance league table has however survived the abolition of recycling payments. Stripped of its financial implications for participants, the league table still represents a key reputational driver for CRC, naming and shaming those participants who fail to improve their environmental performance whilst presenting PR opportunities to those who perform well.

But because the CRC scheme as a whole – and the performance league table in particular – does not differentiate between organisations of differing sizes operating in different sectors in different parts of the country, there has been concern from the outset as to how public sector participants would perform when compared with their private sector counterparts.

Indeed, the Government’s own Committee on Climate Change (CCC), in its September 2010 Advice to Government, identified “clear differences between public and private sector organisations, particularly in the context of budget cuts” and also noted the public sector’s “limited” potential to reduce emissions. The CCC suspected that public sector participants would almost inevitably appear towards the bottom of the league table, and feared that “this would result in the transfer of funds from public to private sectors through the revenue recycling mechanism”. The CCC therefore concluded that there should be separate league tables for public and private sector participants.  This proposal has not been implemented, although the abolition of recycling payments at least removes the spectre of the public sector effectively subsidising the private sector.

Local authority rankings

So, did the local authorities perform as badly in the first league table as the CCC had feared?

Whilst it is true that no local authorities featured among the 22 organisations who shared joint first place among over 2,100 organisations listed, there were still some impressive performances for which congratulations are most definitely in order.

The Greater London Authority was the highest ranked local authority, achieving joint 34th place (tied with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the University of Essex), with Preston City Council not far behind in joint 41st place.

Other local authorities inside the top 100 – and therefore within the top 5% of all participants – were Blackpool Borough Council in joint 61st place, whilst Manchester City Council and its near neighbour Salford City Council tied for a very creditable 88th place. Just outside the top 100, but still deserving of recognition, were Suffolk County Council (joint 103rd place) and Liverpool City Council (joint 109th place).

Wrexham County Borough Council (joint 129th place with North Somerset Council) was the top-ranked Welsh authority, whilst Falkirk Council and South Ayrshire Council (shortly behind in joint 134th place) shared the honours as the leading Scottish authorities.

At the other end of the table, however, there were no fewer than 24 local authorities among the 803 organisations who shared joint last place, having scored ‘nul points’ for early action.

Conclusions

Despite a number of positive performances, for local authorities overall it was a case of ‘could do better’.

But don’t read too much into this first league table. It is potentially misleading since the first year’s rankings take no account of the actual level of emissions produced by the participants, nor any reductions in emissions. The first year’s rankings are based entirely on 'early action', which comprises being certified under one of the seven accredited carbon management schemes (such as Carbon Trust) and measuring electricity and gas supplies through voluntarily installed automatic meter reading devices, dynamic un-metered supply and daily read gas meters.

The first year’s emissions figures do however set the baseline against which participants will be judged in future years. And, even though this first league table may not indicate who is actually the ‘greenest’, one might anticipate that organisations who have taken 'early action' are perhaps also those most likely to take serious action to improve their environmental performance and reduce emissions going forward.

From next year the league table will be more meaningful, reflecting actual emissions and percentage change. And that is when the real challenge begins for cash-strapped local authorities. Good luck!

Bill Chandler is a Legal Director at Hill Dickinson LLP.  He can be contacted on 0151 600 8725 or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.