Agenda item

Agamemnon Otero, Repowering London and Oliver Hombersley, Senior Sustainability and Climate Change Officer, Hackney Council, gave evidence.

In the presentation and the discussion which followed, the following points were made:

·         Repowering was a not-for-profit co-operative which specialised in co-producing community owned renewable energy, mentoring and fuel poverty.

·         Repowering was registered with the Financial Conduct Authority. It was a community benefit society which delivered social outcomes.

·         Repowering work included:

-       reducing CO2 emissions by generating decentralised low-carbon energy

-       tackling fuel poverty and educating residents about energy efficiency

-       promoting local leadership through community engagement and ownership

-       providing opportunities for local and responsible financial investment

-       creating training, internships and employment opportunities for local people

-       encouraging behaviour change

·         Repowering’s vision was to create resilient, empowered communities that controlled and owned the generation and usage of renewable energy and to promote and facilitate the wide scale development and local ownership of renewable energy projects across London.

·         The services provided by Repowering included technical, financial, legal and administrative expertise needed to deliver projects. It also offered a range of guidance, advisory and project management services. It provided access to a network of potential investors to assist the financial backing for a community-owned renewable energy project and it specialised in community engagement.

·         Repowering had installed 500 kilowatts peak (kWp) of community owned renewable energy, saving almost 200 tonnes of CO2 per annum.

·         Repowering had delivered a series of energy advice sessions, community events, home energy audits and energy surveys. Many people did not know how to claim fuel poverty credits. Door knocking was used to engage residents. Specific programmes were held for the unemployed, young people and to upskill professionals.

·         Under the Repowering scheme, the community invested in the renewable energy co-operative and the co-operative installed new renewable energy on local buildings. The technology generated an income which was used to pay into a community energy efficiency fund, an annual dividend for shareholders and covered the administration costs. Each investor had one vote.

·         £165 million left Islington each year in energy bill payments and £13 billion left London each year.

·         The council could be a shareholder of a community energy co-operative. Investors included tenant management organisations (TMOs), councils and local residents. Repowering’s first social enterprise scheme was in Brixton and investment just came from local residents. Stakeholders included schools, installation companies, residents and the council. Inputs included project management, financial modelling, community engagement, legal and IT expertise, public relations and marketing. Outcomes were related to wellbeing.

·         Hackney was the second most deprived area in the UK and Lambeth was the fifth most deprived area in London.

·         The programmes undertaken in Brixton allowed people to invest in their community. Residents were consulted and then a programme was delivered in line with the consultation results.

·         A solar energy project had taken place on Banister Estate, Hackney. This estate had 15 blocks, all with flat roofs. There were 340 residents.

·         Solar panels worked best when facing south and could not be used when facing north. Repowering did not just undertake solar projects and other renewable projects could be undertaken.

·         There were many buildings in Islington where solar panels could be installed.

·         Projects on bigger estates were the most effective.

·         Barriers to community energy schemes included the Financial Conduct Authority changing the way it dealt with co-operatives and changes to the distribution of funding through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

·         As part of the last project, 15 young people have been given internships and had then gone on to full time employment or education.

·         Oliver Hombersley had put in a business case to undertake a co-operative project in Hackney. He submitted a business case, procurement took place and £40,000 seed funding was provided by the council to undertake a pilot on an estate. The chosen estate had an active Tenants’ and Residents’ Association and the scheme was installed at the same time as a roof renewal programme. When the second project was undertaken, the process was more streamlined and shorter.

·         Hackney had a long term community energy strategy. It included a link to health and wellbeing work.

·         Individuals who had invested received a return on their investment. There were no direct savings on energy bills from the energy produced. Energy bills could be reduced by energy switching and draught-proofing. Draught-proofing resulted in a 40% reduction in energy bills.

·         95% of funding for projects was raised from local people within 1½ miles from the scheme.

·         Intermediaries did not generate energy so they had to buy it. Repower could work with intermediaries to provide energy. Agamemnon stated that councils should generate energy if they were using an intermediary to maximise the success of the project.

·         There were a number of intermediaries Repower could work with and the options were being considered.

·         Repower was insured.

·         The Hackney project would be launched at the end of March 2015. The projects in Brixton were mature.

·         A 20 year lease to the co-operative was required to ensure longevity and payback.

·         If shareholders wanted to sell their shares, they sold them back to the co-operative rather than transferred them to another individual as the shares were non-transferable and could not be sold on the open market.

·         If community engagement dropped below a certain level, door knocking would be increased to engage and consult the community.

·         Management costs were build into the project costs. However these could be reduced by the community taking on a management role.

·         Repower had run a course for residents on how to use their boilers. This was run in community centres and if residents preferred, they would be visited in their homes to be shown how to use their boilers.

·         Financial modelling calculations were tabled and would be interleaved with a copy of the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the evidence be noted.