The overall index is presented below. Individual local authority data is in the Local Authorities section.
The top five Local Authorities were:
The bottom five Local Authorities were:
|Authority||Qual Score||Quant Score||Total Score|
|Bristol, City of||60.00||11.01||71.01|
|City of London||54.00||11.34||65.34|
|Hammersmith and Fulham||49.00||11.66||60.66|
|Barking and Dagenham||42.00||12.89||54.89|
|Kingston upon Hull, City of||40.00||14.43||54.43|
|Richmond upon Thames||44.00||8.59||52.59|
|Kingston upon Thames||40.00||10.89||50.89|
|Kensington and Chelsea||41.00||8.63||49.63|
|Newcastle upon Tyne||40.00||8.96||48.96|
|Cheshire West and Chester||32.00||12.56||44.56|
|Brighton and Hove||28.00||10.56||38.56|
|Telford and Wrekin||18.00||13.06||31.06|
|East Riding of Yorkshire||19.00||9.50||28.50|
Figure 1. Overall resultsBack To Top
As discussed in the introduction a low score is not intended to be critical of the authority in question – rather it should be seen as an indicator of relative performance on the critical issue of energy efficiency and, coupled with further examination of the specific situation on the ground, as a guide to areas where further action should be considered.
Each Local Authority must decide on its own priorities but we consider that all authorities as a bare minimum should have effective energy management programmes for their own estate. Experience over many years in many organisations shows that the potential for energy efficiency improvements remains large and that effective energy management programmes can produce cost-effective results year after year. Advances in technology such as LED lighting, wireless heating and ventilating control systems, micro-generation, as well as integrated design tools are all increasing the potential for improving efficiency and improving cost-effectiveness. Increases in energy prices also increase the potential for cost-effective energy efficiency. The tools and techniques for effective energy management are well known, (clear target setting, monitoring and reporting systems, standardised project development and implementation) and increasingly being codified through standards such as ISO 50001. All Local Authorities should review their own energy management programmes for effectiveness, resource them appropriately and aim towards ISO 50001 certification.
As well as energy management in their own estate Local Authorities should consider and value the co-benefits of improving energy efficiency generally within their area. The many co-benefits include economic development and job creation as well as improved health and well-being, reduced emissions and reduced need to spend capital on energy supply infrastructure. Those authorities that have truly recognised these co-benefits, particularly economic development, are most likely to have vigorous energy management programmes both within and out-with their own estate, be developing new organisational forms such as municipally owned ESCOs, as well as have integrated energy plans, such as linking local heat producers in industry with local centres of heat demand through district heating. We think that local economic development is the most compelling argument for improved energy efficiency in the coming years.
As part of the economic development aspect we would expect Local Authorities to take a proactive role in improving, and encouraging other actors to improve, energy efficiency in their own buildings and facilities. This includes households, businesses and other organisations. This effort can take many forms ranging from simple provision of information, through support for community based energy efficiency programmes, supporting building retrofit programmes, and working to bring in funds to energy efficiency including from ECO money and other sources e.g. through Local Enterprise Partnerships or other EU funds.
In short energy efficiency should be seen as an area of strategic importance to Local Authorities, one that can drive economic development and reduce social and health problems. Although some authorities are doing a lot and leading the way with innovations such as municipal ESCOs or encouraging community programmes there is always room for improvement, and many other authorities can improve their response to critical national and local energy issues by learning from the leading authorities.
We can only end this report by once again recognising the excellent work that many Local Authorities are undertaking on the various aspects of the energy agenda, usually in difficult circumstances and always with constrained budgets. As the various technological, economic and institutional changes in the energy market develop over the coming years we believe that Local Authorities can and will take even more of a leading role to the benefit of their communities.