Agenda item

CEAC is asked to review the council’s progress towards the target to become a carbon neutral local authority by 2030 and provide any recommendations to Cabinet. Presented by Heather Saunders, Corporate Energy Officer.

The report was introduced by the Corporate Energy Officer. A lot of progress was already made on targets, however the report recommended dropping the unachievable interim target of 2025 and retaining the overall target of 2030. To reach the target, we would need to accelerate work and obtain funding for potential projects in order to reach the 2030 target.

Members of committee asked questions of clarification on the four proposed scenarios (committed projects, potential projects, a potential solar farm and a potential low carbon fleet), and details within the report, before debating the report’s recommendations in order to reach a conclusion as a committee and recommend to Cabinet.

• Members acknowledged greater baseline data was available now to reconsider the target that was set with no baseline.
• Some members were unsure on dropping the interim target completely.
• Members asked about the option for a solar farm on council land. The reporting officer explained that this was in early scoping stages.
• Members discussed staff mileage and what was being considered to reduce higher mileage (due to role). Officer responded that this was impacted by officers not all being in the same place. The new Climate Action Plan would raise this. It was difficult for the council to control as personal vehicles were individual choice. This may be captured in future though scope three (indirect emissions). It was confirmed that the scopes measured depended on the progress of a project. For example, a leisure centre running on gas would be measured for scope one, but would move to scope two measures if energy was decarbonised etc.
• On solar farms a member asked about whether a proposed solar farm would cover current electricity or be sufficient for future electrification of fleet etc. Would the supply go beyond need? Officers were still researching sites and the sizes available. An increase in electric fleet would logically be balanced with other efficiencies made elsewhere. This project was in early scoping.
• Formal council meetings needed to be in person for decision making as per legislation, so not all meetings can be virtual and save on travel as a result.
• It was confirmed that other councils were in the process of reviewing their net zero targets as well.

In debating the topic, two members discussed that the interim target could be shifted to 40 percent, keeping it ambitious but more achievable than 75 percent (recommendation b).

A member considered that recognising the progress made since 2009/10 in ‘recommendation a’ seemed to deflect, when some of the results would have been improvements to the energy grid etc, not just council work. It was suggested to make the recommendation similar to:

“CEAC recognises the significant amount of carbon reduction activities that had been actioned by the council and activities that are being progressed now in order to reduce carbon emissions.” The member also considered that the interim target should not be removed, but possibly other targets considered at different steps.

It was asked what the risks were to not changing the target, considering this was not a statutory target. An officer responded that it was more reputational, and monitoring and reconsidering targets shows that as a council we are monitoring our progress and adjusting them if unrealistic. A member considered that having these targets were important in order to drive KPIs across our work and contracts.

There was general reluctance to drop the interim target, and a member added that we should consider what does it mean to the public whether we change the target or leave it as it is? We needed to understand the full implications. When the targets were set, there was no baseline. Now there was a baseline, we could adjust the target accordingly, but not necessarily needing to change or even remove it. Could removing it show a loss of focus? A point was raised that reassessing a target should not be viewed as negative when we simply had more data available now to create more accurate targets.

Members asked whether officers could come back with a plausible interim target. Could the interim date be in-between 2025-30, such as 2027/8?

After discussing the implications of changing or removing the target, the chair summarised the discussion and members agreed with the following recommendations:

Recommendations:

a)    CEAC recognises the significant progress made in reducing our operational carbon emissions by 47 per cent since 2009/10.

Members added that, to be more transparent about achievements, can this recommendation be more descriptive about what we had achieved. Committee suggested in additional point about 2019 onwards achievements and the percentage reduction achieved.

b) CEAC recommends that Cabinet agrees to retain its operational net zero target of 2030, but do not agree that the interim target for a 75 per cent reduction in emissions should be dropped.

Members suggested that officers work on a more realistic interim target that we can set with the knowledge and tools gained. Possibly a target in 2027/28 rather than 2025.