CRC Performance League Table – key findings & summary


Here at Local Energy, we have been dissecting the first CRC Performance League Table. In particular, we have been interested in how the public sector fared. Here is a summary of our findings. Please click on the links for further information.

1. 40% of the participants had an EAM of 0 (803/2103)

WSP Environment & Energy director, David Symons, said these lowest-ranked organisations who hadn’t installed Automatic Meter Readers were ‘wasting money’.  He said: “If all of the 800 companies at the bottom of the league table took this simple measure, they would together cut UK carbon emissions by 100,000 tonnes, cut £12m off their energy bills and avoid having to buy £1.2m of CRC allowances.”

2. The public sector fared better overall than the private sector.


Average Rank Average EAM
Public Sector 812 29
Private Sector 925 22


Public sector organisations make up 28% of the table, but constitute 40% of the top 22 and only 19% of the 803 with an EAM of 0.

Of the bottom 803, 24 were local authorities which is only 12% of all the local authorities in the table.

3. Local Authorities and Universities performed very similarly, and both did better than the NHS and Police

 4. Splitting the Local Authorities by region, Scotland, the South West, the West Midlands and the North East were best overall. Northern Ireland (only one organisation), London, the East of England and the South East did the worst.

5. Amongst 166 local authorities in England and Wales, those with no political control performed the best. Labour led councils performed better than Conservative, and Lib Dems did the worst.

6. The total cost of all carbon reported in the table will be £734 million next year at £12 per tonne. Local Authorities constitute 11% of this (£85 million).

Birmingham city council will be the largest local authority contributor paying around £1.2 million, but there are more than 50 councils facing a carbon bill of more than half a million pounds.

Reacting to the good performance of the public sector in the PLT, WSP Environment and Energy director, David Symons, “In general, universities and public sector bodies appear to be in the upper half of performers, which is to be applauded. The top-ranking performances by DECC is particularly impressive.”

Martin Crandon, the Carbon Programme Manager at North Somerset Council, a member of Local Energy who came 6th of all Local Authorities was “very pleased” with their league table position. He explained how they had achieved this to Local Energy:

“With the introduction of the Carbon Reduction Commitment, North Somerset Council set up a Carbon Management Programme.  Keen to appear in the top half of the league table we rolled out an AMR programme on all of our gas and electricity meters across the authority, and we achieved the Carbon Trust Standard for the whole organisation. In October 2009 we set up a corporate energy contract which transferred all of our energy supplies to just one supplier, and at this point we fixed our unit price of energy for a five year period, which to date has paid dividends. We were very pleased with our league table position and we are seeking to maintain it. To do this, we are proposing to ‘part-night’ 80% of our street light portfolio and we are currently working with the Carbon Trust on our school estate which makes up over half of our carbon footprint.’

Reflecting on the PLT, Andy Johnston, chief executive of Local Energy said “The results of the first round of the league table are interesting and point to the individual organisations and sectors that have been proactive. However, the results are only based on the installation of automatic meters and possession of the Carbon Trust Standard. The real test starts next year when the league table reflects actual carbon emissions. I hope that the strong performance by the public sector can be sustained. However the dynamics of the table could shift significantly next round as it is likely that many CRC participants saw the early action metric as an unnecessary cost or practically unachievable, whereas reducing emissions saves money.”