Carbon Trust update
February 1st 2008

Following an article on the Carbon Trust last year Water Energy & Environment received a large and mixed response. Following a National Audit Office (NAO) report and allegations of bias towards big business,Tim McManan-Smith argues that questioning its approach will lead to more clarity, and ultimately, greater efficiency

At the risk of alienating some readers, it's worth revisiting the Carbon Trust's procedural inaccuracies and reporting the latest findings with regards to the organisation.

The original article referred to the fact that one party received a Carbon Trust loan for purchasing a Maxsys Fuel+ for an energy saving scheme and another party was refused.The Carbon Trust admitted the loan should never have been approved.

What clouded the issue was the technology in question.Magnetic fuel saving devices are contentious.But the technology is either good enough for a loan or it is not: it can't be both.

One reader thought the article biased against the Carbon Trust.

However, I disagree. Prior to print the Carbon Trust received the article, was given right of reply and admitted to inaccuracies.

I advocate the energy saving and carbon reducing technologies that the Carbon Trust promotes. Its mission to accelerate the move to a low carbon economy is vital.

However, that doesn't mean it is always right. Every organisation makes mistakes – which is only human.Should they not be reported? Should questions not be asked? The following is an excerpt of the recent NAO report The Carbon Trust accelerating the move to a low carbon economy: "The Carbon Trust has worked with a relatively small proportion of businesses...Wider market penetration could generate greater reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.The Carbon Trust has worked with at least 12% of companies with energy bills of over £50,000 a year.As a private sector organisation, the Carbon Trust's business-led approach has helped it to build a strong brand and market position, and encouraged innovation amongst its staff to adapt to changing market conditions and develop services to meet customer demand. Its funding from central government, however, has restricted its ability to target specific organisations because of European Union rules on state aid.

Any step change in take up without a corresponding increase in government funding depends upon companies being willing to pay for advice. One option might be to explore how the Carbon Trust might franchise certain services for accredited third parties to market competitively.This could also lead to a greater ability to target those organisations where the greatest emission reductions are possible.

Any resources freed up could potentially be used to lever further private sector investment in emerging low carbon technologies." Although there have been many successes from the Carbon Trust such as the £400 million plus in energy savings (2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions saved) per year at a rate of over £2 saved for every £1 only 40% of the savings identified by them from 2003 to 2006 have been enacted.

The British Chambers of Commerce last year accused the Carbon Trust of being "focused on self-seeking PR and big business".This is also a view shared by Tim Gardner of Gardner Energy Management (GEM).GEM has a venturi stream trap that is able to save 10-30% energy yet it is not on the Energy Technology List and therefore unqualified for ECAs.

It was on the list at one point, but because the category has been removed, he has to prove its energy saving potential again. Isn't that a waste of energy in itself? Gardner says that, despite providing an independent consultant, the Carbon Trust refused to talk to him. He claims the Trust said: "Because you have a unique product it would be anticompetitive to put you on the list." Is this one man venting his frustration or is a procedural problem? Encouraging innovation in energy saving is one the Carbon Trust's primary aims.Creating a category of one would surely encourage product development.

The NAO's report also had good things to say about the Trust: "In the last five years, the Carbon Trust has substantially revised and improved the earlier Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme run by the predecessor to the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.

On the basis of its estimated impact, it has secured a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from businesses and the public sector which indicates it is likely to meet the expectation set out by the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs in the Climate Change Programme 2006 that its actions will result in an annual reduction of 4.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 on levels in 1990." The fact that the NAO advocates that the Carbon Trust "franchise certain services for accredited third parties to market competitively" is surprising.How does this sit when compared to all of the existing private organisations involved in energy efficiency best practice? Surely a database that good is a competitive advantage over other consultancies? Anti-competitive.

Now why does that sound familiar...?

More articles from Carbon Trust Enterprises Ltd: