Nick Blyth considers members' views on the Treasury's consultation.
I ran workshops discussing and shaping with members IEMA's response to the consultation on the business energy tax landscape in the run-up to the deadline for responses. It was an important consultation and, despite some very understandable early reaction, which could be summarised as "here we go again", there is a real hope that a less overlapping and more effective policy landscape can emerge.
It could lead to mandatory reporting (energy or carbon) being extended beyond the current listed companies. However, it also has to be said there was no shortage of cynicism among members.
Why? It could be a sinking feeling of - yet again - needing to brief the leadership team on change; having a tricky conversation with finance about future uncertain carbon prices; or simply the risk of change that could undermine recently established systems and teams. Many members referred to the political short-term change on individual policies with the stated cross-party consensus of 2050 carbon targets.
Many cited the CRC as a good idea that has suffered from frequent change. To the energy efficiency scheme's credit it has exceeded its projected savings, as evidenced in a 2015 review by CAG Consultants. Views are mixed, but many members stated the CRC is now working for them, with the biggest administrative "burden" being initial set-up and simplification adjustment. Although the CRC is unlikely to survive long term, a transition period would be sensible. There is merit in the new policy landscape learning from its most positive elements and, in particular, its use of multiple and visible policy drivers.
A combination of UK reviews, uncertainty over Europe, and the critical Paris climate talks all herald change and hopefully progress ahead. Next year will be critical as IEMA continues to work with members and make our contribution to influencing and shaping policy.