city of london corporation
New standard was logical progression for
City of London Corporation
First local authority to secure Carbon Trust Standard entered
scheme after fifteen years of maintaining energy reductions
(EEAS) since 1993, having taken the lead in complex and the Barbican Centre. It is easy to
that scheme as a pilot authority. “That step forget that the great produce markets at
has to be seen in the context of a committee Smithfield and Billingsgate are owned by the
of Members and Aldermen that had been set City of London Corporation and contribute to
up in 1975, with a specific focus on energy. its energy consumption under the forthcom-
It was originally a sub-committee of the ing Carbon Reduction Commitment rules.
Finance Committee, until responsibility for its Paul Kennedy noted that electricity con-
activities passed to the Property Committee. sumed at its larger sites has been tracked
“We were one of the first local authorities to through half-hourly metering (a criterion for
appoint a dedicated energy management inclusion in the CRC programme).
team - in 1985 – while ten years later, we “We are exploring smart metering for our
started monitoring and reporting on CO
2
.” smaller properties, and investigating the moni-
The City of London Corporation secured re- toring of gas usage across all of them. While
accreditation under the EEAS every three our total energy consumption, including gas,
years from 1993, and would no doubt have defines the City’s CRC rating, there is at present
done so again in 2008, had that programme no regulatory provision for tracking gas at half
not ended in May of that year, its role being hourly intervals. We suspect that this will hap-
absorbed into the Carbon Trust. pen in due course.”
“It was logical that we should progress to
the new Carbon Trust Standard. It differs from
the old system in that CTS requires partici-
CTS imposes high standards
pants to demonstrate an absolute reduction in With its decade and a half of conformance to
carbon emissions from one assessment to the the EEAS, had Mr Kennedy and his team found
next. it difficult to meet the CTS requirements? “It
“Re-accreditation now takes place at two- was certainly not easy, because it imposes
yearly intervals, placing participants under very high standards. As a local authority, we
greater pressure to maintain their efforts and were not joining a carbon reduction scheme
achieve results.” for the first time, so we will find it harder in the
future to achieve further reductions. We are
Population not indicative of size
looking at putting systems in place where the
Chief Officers have more stringent targets to
With only 9,000 residents and four schools, it achieve those reductions.”
might be assumed that the City of London’s Its Beacon authority status means that the
energy footprint is minuscule. Closer exami- City of London will be held up as an example
nation of the City of London Corporation’s port- of good practice in climate change manage-
folio suggests rather higher levels of energy ment to other UK local authorities which have
are involved. not progressed as far down the same path.
It has responsibility, for example, for five Paul Kennedy and his team take that respon-
bridges across the Thames - including the sibility seriously: it is a view that is shared
iconic Tower Bridge – and major public build- across an institution where history appears
ings such as the Old Bailey, the Guildhall never to have got in the way of progress. §
As a local authority, the City of London Corporation has not joined a carbon reduction scheme for the
first time. This will make it harder to achieve further reductions in the future to maintain CTS status.
The Informed Executive
23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98