1.A named HECA contact in each ECA - someone to co-ordinate and act as a conduit for action.
2.It not just Government programmes that deliver Energy Efficiency - The guidance report is only concerned with reporting on Government schemes and assumes no local initiatives. This is the best opportunity to capture the activity that isn't devised by Whitehall.
3.Annual reporting - We work in annual plans already, we'll have to collect the data so why only ask for reports every 2 years it’s a good way to ensure no work gets done.
4.Signed reports - the old reports had to be signed by Chief Execs this was very good for getting HECA issues on the corporate agenda and letting the top level know we acted on this. It was also proposed that this could be counter signed by the Health sector (either the Director of Public Health or the Health and Well Being Boards) and hence force links on Fuel poverty.
5.Target dates - let us at least ask where ECA expect to be in 2020 and 2050 so that Government can have some comparable metric.
6.A requirement to report on CO2, Fuel Poverty and SAP/EPC- given that we can choose our target means there is nothing to stop me setting a target to reduce kWHs used by 50% by 2050 on the knowledge that as we move from gas to electric, KWhs per households will fall (this could be achieved without reducing CO2 or fuel poverty).
7.The 31 march 2013 deadline should be delayed until 30 Sept - given that HECA officers will be the ones who should be expected to deliver on Green Deal, January to March 2013 is already a busy period. It’s the tail end of Winter so we still have the fallout from broken heating systems (knowing that Warmfront won't be around for the first time means we'll have multiple demands to address that). Most of key data is not released until the summer and whilst the Government does not need us to report data anymore we need it to inform our strategies. Also the new report wants us to plan targets for GD take up with no experience of this radical shift in programme. A six month delay would have helped deliver better reports that really gauge the potential.
Given that the guidance is so loose I think we could instigate these things on our own anyway. Previously as the NW CAN we delveloped a NW system so that we were using the same calculations and methods to report our improvements. Whilst is was voluntary at least 60% of LA adopted it. So I see no reason why we cannot do the same. AS the guidance says it will work with CAN, it gives us a strong position to suggest ideas and methods. We are best placed as in the past we have had bespoke software made available (HECAMON and the NI187 stuff) but it has been very unpractical for HECA work and was poorly used because it only dealt with fulfilling the basic answers not providing information and feedback to householders or strategic benefits.Statistics:Posted by David — Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:08 am
]]>