The Green Party Response to the West Yorkshire Transport Strategy 2016 - 2036

Here's the final response  we gave to the West Yorkshire Transport Strategy. I was persuaded to take the following sentence out of our response as it wasn't the right tone I quite liked it though

 

"The intermediate West Yorkshire stop on the Northern Powerhouse Rail route HS3 should be located in Narnia as a fantasy project should be located in a fantasy kingdom."

 So if you're reading from West Yorkshire Combined Authority that is what you could have had!

The Green Party Response to the West Yorkshire Transport Strategy 2016 - 2036

This response to the West Yorkshire Transport Strategy represents the views of the Green Parties of West Yorkshire and has been shared and agreed with our elected representatives on Leeds, Bradford and Kirklees Councils and through consultation with Party members throughout West Yorkshire.

How strongly you agree or disagree with our proposed policies described in each of the core themes and the cross-cutting theme?

We believe a 60 year vision is needed. 20 years is too short a period to realise the sort of transformation in our transport system that is needed.

An initial observation on the consultation questions is that there are a lot of obvious ‘Motherhood and Apple Pie’ statements that we are asked to express an opinion on. This devalues the consultation exercise and could lead respondees to question its validity.

Delivering the Strategy is very dependent on road improvements with a strong emphasis on road schemes which will lead to increased capacity on Major routes. This accommodation of demand can only be temporary in nature. Delivering road improvements to local congestion hot spots is eventually and inevitably self-defeating as demand increases and diminishes the dubious benefit of the investment.

Road surfaces however desperately need improvements for all road users especially cyclists who are at most personal risk from potholed roads. The austerity budgets being imposed by central Government on local Councils is leading to a rapidly deteriorating road network

In the Consultation questionnaire it asks whether we should “Provide new roads to improve access to development sites” – This seems a very odd question and leads to a strong suspicion that it is aboutencouraging development in green belt as it assumes development will be away from existing hubs.We need to develop housing and employment around existing transport hubs and communities rather than creating new ones. We must avoid monoculture communities e.g. commuter belt towns. We also have concerns that improving orbital roads may well suck the life out of city centres

Demand reduction needs to be an aim of the Strategy. We must have policies in place that limit the necessity to have vehicles. Spatial Planning that links existing transport hubs with new development is one way of addressing demand, as is l.  Travel diaries/Travel Planning are important tools to help people adopt healthier forms of transport.  More food grown and used locally to avoid food miles is another approach.  You should also be working with local councils, developers, and bus operators to ensure that developments proposed over the next 15- 20 years in DLP’s can be serviced by public transport, cycling and walking.  The alternative is more congestion and pressure to carry out self-defeating road improvements

We strongly believe that local and community rail improvements should be prioritised over new road schemes, as should improvements to the bus network which currently carries 5 – 6 times more passengers than rail. A process of “Debeechification” should begin with greater emphasis on improving and expanding the rail network; while more road space should be dedicated to bus priority lanes.

HS2 is largely irrelevant to our local transport needs and the money would be much better spent on improving public transport infrastructure locally ie rail, light rail, tram and bus networks. We strongly oppose a masterplan for a new HS2 Yorkshire Hub Station in Leeds on that basis.

The question as to where the intermediate West Yorkshire stop on the Northern Powerhouse Rail route HS3 should be located is unfortunately irrelevant as we believe this is a fantasy project not grounded in reality.

The Consultation Questionnaire says that we should “Involve Communities in making improvements to their neighbourhoods to create safer and healthier places” – How and with what money?

Accessibility for people with disabilities should be an important part of the Strategy particularly as we move to more pedestrian friendly town centres.

We should look to banning diesel cars from all Town and City Centres – California has set a good example with a policy that we should follow – starting by announcing a ban on the worst polluting diesel vehicles/cars from Town Centres to start by 2020.

“The current duopoly of First and Arriva in West Yorkshire is uncompetitive and does not act in the interest of the public transport user.  It gives unfair advantage to the dominant operator in any sub-area and stops the development of other operations that could significantly improve services.  Effectively the market works for First and Arriva, but nobody else.  In our view anything short of the powers that Transport for London have regarding buses means the main providers of public transport in West Yorkshire will not work in the interest of its people.”

What you think we should measure to show our progress in delivering transport improvements in each of the core themes and the cross-cutting theme?

The Strategy should be set against the context of the Paris Climate Agreement. It should be an integral part of the Strategy to show how it is contributing to the carbon emissions reduction targets set in the Nationally Determined Contributions agreed in Paris last year. It is a major omission that it is not. 

The Strategy says it wants to have “The best bus system in Europe” as an aspiration. This is a very strange aspiration. Where is the best bus system in Europe? How is it determined – what about the rest of public transport? What about walking and cycling?

The automatic assumption that all growth is good is a fundamental problem with the strategy. Growth can negatively impact on quality of life through, for instance, air pollution and the knock on impact on public health. What we should measure to show progress in delivering improvements to road network are decreasing emissions in terms of Carbon/SOX/NOX/Particulates and noise reduction. 

We need a holistic cost analysis of different transport options for instance public transport V car would have added a lot of substance to the strategy. There is no such analysis in the strategy and this is a major weakness.

Another important way to measure the success of the Strategy would be by measuring modal shift from car to Public Transport and measuring the use of the Mcard for regular public transport users.

“Road deaths” are not just about traffic accidents but the premature deaths caused each year as a result of emissions and low air quality – Gloucestershire’s Speed Reduction Partnership give communities their own speed guns – This is a good example that West Yorkshire could emulate.  

We were asked to say how we should measure progress in delivering improvements to places to places to live and work? There is a well established methodology called the Happiness Index that would be well suited to this task. We should also measure progress through satisfaction surveys of commuters and general transport users using all modes of transport.

Have we missed anything you feel should be included in the strategy?

A hierarchy of users should be followed through in the Strategy starting with the pedestrian first and the private car last.

The strategy should not encourage aviation by supporting the expansion of Leeds/Bradford airport. This would be in harmony with a strategy that took a holistic approach to transportation and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Rail use for freight should be encouraged and there is an absence of serious comment on this in the strategy documentation.

We need to invest in traffic signals so vehicles can move more freely, more efficiently and in a less polluting fashion. This should be linked with Action in the ground by the Highways Agency and local Councils.

There are jobs in a ‘green approach’ to transport policies – e.g. cycle logistics firms. Showing how the transport strategy is going to support employment would be a positive addition to the strategy

The benefits of new technology should benefit us all – autonomous and connected vehicles providing “collective” solutions rather than new gadgets for an elite. We are thinking particularly of advances towards driverless cars which may become a reality during the life of this strategy.

Fleet Managers need the right policy levers to enable them to be the first movers on new vehicle technology such as electric and hybrid cars. Showing how this could be achieved in the strategy would have been helpful.

We would be happy to meet relevant officers of West Yorkshire Transport Authority to discuss our observations 

Yours sincerely

Councillor Andrew Cooper on behalf of Green Parties across West Yorkshire

Speech to Clean Energy Live Birmingham NEC – 3/10/16 - Cllr Andrew Cooper - Green Party Energy Spokesperson

Being in the Green Party you are often subject to popular misconceptions. One which I’m sure many people have is that we are anti nuclear power. Now nothing could be further from the truth. We are actually very pro nuclear power with just some conditions around the finances. There should be no public or consumer subsidy for capital costs, the same rule should apply to ongoing revenue costs and of course decommissioning costs which are often a concern for nuclear power plants. The question then is always well would a nuclear plant ever be constructed under such a hostile financial regime? To which we would answer “ Constructed?  it already exists! It is 93 million miles away, is pretty reliable, predictable and if it ever did develop a fault we really would be in trouble”.

The UK Government is also very pro-nuclear power but it prefers its nuclear energy to be closer to home and they have a different take on the finances. The cost of Hinckley C to the consumer via the deal they have agreed on our behalf is reportedly around the £37 Billion mark.  Government is all about choices and what could we do with £37 Billion with solar for instance? Here’s a very rough and ready calculation. £37 Billion/ £5000 the lower end cost of a 4kWp solar PV system would provide on-site solar energy to 7.5 million homes. This is around 30% of all UK homes. Of course that is a very rough and ready figure but it shows the potential -  but possibly only the lower end of the potential. What if we had a national house by house programme which helped reduce costs further could we shave another £1000 off the cost that would be enough for 9 and quarter million homes. Such a programme would encourage significant expansion in solar manufacturing in the UK bringing with it more jobs, investment and the tax revenue that governments love. If we invested in large community owned solar PV installations the value of that £37 Billion would go even further. The advances that continue to be made in storage make solar an ever growing option for year round energy.

We need a Government vision informed by the renewables industry. During the General Election the Green Party policy in our Manifesto was attacked by some as being undeliverable but we were on firm ground because we worked with the Solar Trade Association to develop a policy that was ambitious but would be realistic based on the assumption that it would come from a Government that truly believed in a renewable energy future

Politics is all about choices and the vision we have for the future of our country and the wider world. Solar is not just a renewable energy it can also be a democratising energy that puts more power in the hands of individuals and communities and less in the hands of large corporate energy supply interests. This is not the general thrust of current UK Government policy. The abolition of the Zero Carbon homes standard for new build properties and the loss of Energy Company Obligation funding for retrofit insulation measures helps maintain high and growing domestic energy demand. The effective outlawing of onshore renewable energy through the planning system in England  and the hacking away at the Feed In tariff has slowed the advance of renewables in our country and as such the UK Government should be regarded as at best disinterested in sustainable energy and at worst overtly hostile. The future at the moment is nuclear, fracked gas heating and poorly insulated buildings. It’s their choice of future , not mine and I’m sure not yours.

Brexit may be Brexit what ever that means but it is not good news for renewables. The EU Renewable Energy Directive is/was a useful driver for investment in renewables even if UK policy was pushing us in the wrong direction and we were way down the EU Renewable Energy League Table along with Malta and Luxembourg. We need to ensure that whatever Brexit means that we stick with EU targets even if failure will no longer mean a financial penalty on the UK Govt.

So what do we do?

In Kirklees our 2000 Council house solar PV programme was stopped in its tracks last year. We got to 600 before the feed in tarrif cut hit. So we had to start thinking of other ways to make progress

In Kirklees we are looking at the viability of establishing our own building standards on land that we own. Those standards would be Passivhaus standards with 10% of the energy demand of a standard new build. They could incorporate solar PV and thermal. An all party working group that I chair on Kirklees  Council is developing recommendations for this policy. We want to hold a mirror up to Government to say this is what you can do when you have the political will. If that can be achieved in one Council in one part of the UK why not everywhere?

So I’d like to conclude by saying the Green Party does not have all the answers. We need the humility and common sense to realise that we need to work with others who share our vision and values for a clean energy future. So let us work together.  Let’s work on solutions with common purpose and optimism.

The future will be bright , if its solar and renewable.

Kirklees Green Cllrs Motion on Solar Photovoltaic Feed In Tariff cuts passed

Councillor Andrew Cooper outside some of the Kirklees homes benefitting from the Green Party 2000 house solar programme

 Green Party Motion on Solar Photovoltaic Feed In Tariff cuts

This Council notes

• Conservative Government proposals to cut the Feed In Tariff for Solar Photovoltaics by 87% from 1/1/15.

• That these cuts will mean a catastrophic reduction in the amount of solar panels being installed, leading to significant job losses and putting our modest 2020 EU Renewable Energy targets at risk.

• The threat to Kirklees Councils 2000 home solar PV programme that will help reduce energy costs for many low income households

The Council calls on the Chief Executive to write to the UK Government requesting that they enter talks with the Solar Industry to agree a plan that delivers a sustainable future  for the solar industry (e.g. Solar Trade Association's Solar Independence Plan)

Lib Dems - They don't like it up em!

Seeing a Lib Dem motion to Kirklees congratulating the Coalition Govt on it's commitment to tackling climate change was somewhat annoying having seen cut after cut in energy programmes and broken promises associated with the new feed in tariff. So the Green Party Amendment listed many of these and annoyed the Lib Dems because of the length of the amendment but then there were a lot of cuts and broken promises. They also claimed the amendment was inaccurate but never really identified exactly what was inaccurate about it. There was an inaccuracy in the amendment. It said that funding for the Green Investment Bank had been scaled down from £6Billion to £2 Billion. Following the Spending Review yesterday this figure went down to £1Billion. Our apologies!

The focus of the Lib Dem motion was the new right for Councils to sell renewable electricity they generate back to the grid and this is indeed welcome but there are a few 'howevers'. One particular 'however' is the fact that a promise to extend the Feed In Tariff to early adopters of renewable technologies such as pioneers like Kirklees has now been dropped by the Coalition government. This means that thousands of  pounds worth of funds that could have come to Kirklees now will not. The Lib Dems called for a Green Energy Action Plan to take advantage of the Feed In Tariffs. At no point in the debate did they mention the programmes already being planned such as the £650k worth of PV for Council Buildings or the £12 million for Council buildings, probably because they've had nothing to do with it. You can imagine however that a few months down the line a Lib Dem leaflet will appear somehow linking themselves with these developments. They do have some form in this regard. They poured scorn on the Green Party amendments for a free area based solar photovoltaic programme across Kirklees saying it was 'unaffordable' and a 'fantasy'. They are clearly not following developments in the capital financing of PV projects across the country where all the capital costs and more of the projects are being met by the feed in tariff. Indeed businesses are being set up seemingly weekly offering free PV. A Council led scheme could offer value for money and spread the benefit to households beyond those which are dead on due south with large roofs.

Anyway for your delectation here is the Lib Dem Motion and the Green Amendment. For the record the Green amendment was defeated by the Cons and Lib Dems but was supported by many Labour Cllrs. The Lib Dem motion was passed.

Lib Dem motion

Coalition Government's Commitment to Tackling Climate Change


This Council congratulates the Coalition Government for their positive commitment to tackling climate change.

Council welcomes the decision by the Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne to allow local councils to sell renewable energy to the grid, overturning a ban on this activity by the previous Government.

Council recognises that we have a vital role to play in the switch to a new low carbon economy. This decision will allow us to take full advantage of the feed-in tariff and deliver long term benefits to support services delivered by this council.

The availability of feed in tariffs will provide this council with an opportunity to generate a significant income and reduce our energy bills via increased micro generation.

This Council therefore calls upon the Cabinet to urgently develop a “Green Energy Action Plan” to maximise the benefits and identify potential savings that can be delivered via the use of feed-in tariffs.

Green Party Amendment

Delete all after ‘This Council’ insert

‘questions the Coalition Government’s commitment to tackling climate change based on:-

• the breaking of a promise by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats prior to the election to include early adopters of solar panels such as Kirklees in the Feed In Tariff

• the abolition of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy which would have provided strong policies to encourage microgeneration in new buildings.

• the breaking of a commitment by the Liberal Democrats not to support new nuclear power stations the cost of which will now be borne by the public.

• the end of a commitment by the previous government to insulate all lofts and cavity walls where technically possible to 2020.

• the abolition of the Sustainable Development Commission which actually saved the Government money.

• Cuts of £12.6m from The Carbon Trust's grant for low carbon technology and business support funding from DECC

• Cuts of £4.7m by cancelling final rounds of Bio-Energy Capital Grants Scheme and Bio-Energy Infrastructure Scheme

• Cuts of £3m by reducing the scope of the Offshore Wind Capital Grants Scheme

• Cuts of £3m from closing the Low Carbon Buildings Programme early

• £2.9m cuts by reducing the scope of the government's Low Carbon Technology Programme

• £1m cut to funding for development of deep geothermal energy generation

• £700,000 cut by the closing of renewable technology trials early

• The damage caused to the solar thermal, biomass and heat pump industry by the long period of speculation over the future of the Renewable Heat Incentive

• The damage caused to the solar PV and small wind industry by long speculation over the future of the Feed In Tariff

• The reported reduction in the Feed In Tariff by 10%

• The halving in funding for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects

• The reduction in funding from the proposed £6Billion to £2 Billion for the Green Investment Bank

• The proposed abolition of the Warm Front scheme for Low Income households

• The 10% increase in funding for nuclear decommissioning

• The cancelling of the Severn Barrage which could have provided 5% of the UK's electricity needs

This Council has the following concerns about the Coalition Government’s ‘Green Deal’

• An over emphasis on supermarkets as the deliverer of the Green Deal when clearly Council schemes such as the free insulation provided by Kirklees Council demonstrably deliver high numbers of measures while schemes lead by supermarkets have performed poorly.

• The reported omission of microgeneration from the Green Deal finance package

• A loan mechanism will not be the most cost effective way of funding low cost measures such as loft and cavity wall insulation.

This Council calls on the Coalition Government to ensure the Green Deal

• makes Councils a key partner and/or deliverer of the programme.

• enables area based approaches for the delivery of insulation and microgeneration measures

• has a cost effective way of delivering low cost measures such as insulation measures

This Council calls on the Cabinet to

• develop a free area based solar photovoltaic programme to be made available to all households where technically possible and where there is no impact on Council budgets.

• Add carbon reduction as a 5th Council Priority

• Develop a comprehensive action plan to reduce carbon which based including energy conservation, energy efficiency, behavioral change and green energy.

How is the "Greenest Government Ever" doing?

It is still early day for the new Government but the early signs are not good for David Cameron's claim that  this would be the 'greenest government ever'. There have been several damaging cuts to what were already pretty miniscule programmes to support low carbon technologies. These have destabilised small renewable industry installers particularly with regard to biomass. With the cancellation of the Low Carbon Buildings Programme grants and uncertainty over the Renewable Heat Incentive struggling biomass installers are up against it.

There was hope by some that the Lib Dems would make the Tories  green rhetoric a reality but little evidence is forthcoming yet. During the election campaign Friends of the Earth released lots of yellow balloons outiside parliament representing all the Lib Dem candidates who had signed up to their key election asks (and a few blue ones). When I asked them why they hadn't released any Green ones for all the Green Party Candidates who had signed FOEs asks (like me!) they said that they went out to buy green ones but there weren't enough. Hmmm..... with 'friends of the earth' like these who needs enemies.

Cuts to low-carbon technology programmes:
- £12.6m from The Carbon Trust's grant for low carbon technology and business support funding from DECC
- £6.1m 'efficiency savings' and under-spending on programme budgets within DECC
- £4.7m by cancelling final rounds of Bio-Energy Capital Grants Scheme and Bio-Energy Infrastructure Scheme
- £3m by reducing the scope of the Offshore Wind Capital Grants Scheme
- £3m from closing the Low Carbon Buildings Fund early
- £2.9m by reducing the scope of the government's Low Carbon Technology Programme
- £1m cut to funding for development of deep geothermal energy generation
- £700,000 by closing the Energy Saving Trust technology trials early

Here comes the sun

Imagine a time not very far from now. You're sitting at home minding your own business and someone knocks on your door.

"Hello sorry to bother you I'm calling on behalf of Kirklees Council about providing free solar panels for your house."

"This is a privately owned house the council estates round the corner"

"No this offer is for private householders"

"So how much do I have to pay?"

"Nothing they're free"

"And exactly how much has our Council Tax got to go up to pay for this so called 'free' scheme by the Council?"

"Your Council Tax is unaffected the costs of the panels will be paid for via the new Feed in tariff. All you have to do is sign this form to assign the tarrif to us and you get the panels on your roof"

" Well if I'm going to get no financial benefit why should I do it? I'm not one of these lentil eating, treehugging green types who fit solar panels for the good of the planet you know."

"Actually on average usage you should be able to reduce your electricity bill by about 25-30% per year using the electricity generated by your solar panels so you could save anywhere between £100 and £200 each year for as long as the panels are installed."

"Ok you can fit them but don't make a mess and can I choose the colour?"

So could this happen? We might not be that far off at all. The finances certainly stack up and this week the Green Party on Kirklees got agreement from the incoming Labour Administration to draw up plans to make this a reality. There are issues to be addressed to make this a reality but they are not unsurmountable. Hopefully within the year we will have another revolutionary nation leading scheme to tackle carbon emissions, reduce fuel costs and create jobs.

Con-Dems. Where's the fire?

The Con-Dem Coalition Government has a large section on the environment. Leaving aside for a second the fact that the targets they have adopted for reducing carbon emissions are inadequate it is certainly more ambitious than the Labour Govt's programme. As always implementation is the test. It will be interesting to see how the Cons try and get round the financing of nuclear without using public money. No doubt there will be some dodge somewhere that they have in mind. We'll see.

There was specific mention in the Con-Dem agreement for support for a "full establishment for a feed-in tariff for electricity". What this means we will see but if the Tories are true to their word this will mean that solar photovoltaic installations installed prior to the 15/7/10 will qualify for the feed in tariff. There are lots of ways that this could be interpreted to be more or less generous so the devil is as always in the detail.

The Environment section on Energy covers most of the main high level policy areas but oddly there is no mention of the proposed Renewable Heat Incentive due to come into being next April under Labour's timetable. In what has been a fairly lacklustre performance on the renewable energy agenda by Labour this was a real innovation a genuinely ground breaking proposal. It promised a huge growth in the biomass, heat pump and solar thermal industries with users of renewable heat being rewarded with a dedicated tariff.Of course it's omission does not mean they won't pursue this policy but it certainly worth a Parliamentary Question at the very least.

The other Labour Government target (which they had no plan to acheive) was to insulate every loft and cavity wall in domestic properties by 2015. It would be interesting to see if this policy is retained and how it will be implemented. The Kirklees programme is due to finish in about 6 weeks with over 50'000 properties insulated in the last three years. So we have acheived the Government target 5 years ahead of target! So another Parliamentary Question worth asking Mr Chris Huhne.

If only we had a Green Party MP. Ah we do!

I join the 'Energy Generating Democracy'!

So at last our solar is installed! We have 1.3kWp of PV and a large solar thermal system feeding into a thermal store which will also be able to have heat input from a wood burning back boiler, the gas boiler and if we really need it an immersion heater. I really want to put the switch to the immersion heater in one of those glass fronted boxes saying, 'smash glass in emergency'.

In financial terms it will cost us a couple of grand with £10k of the costs covered by Kirklees Council's RE-Charge scheme and £2.5k by the now defunct Low Carbon Buildings Programme PV grant. Very roughly we will get a minimum of £400/year from the Clean Energy Cashback for 25 years another £400/year from the Renewable Heat Incentive and a minimum of £200/year fuel savings. So I estimate a very conservative financial benefit of £1000/year. I am sure George Monbiot would be foaming at the mouth if he was reading this now.

We get a couple of displays showing how much energy is being produced from each set of panels. It is quite a liberating feeling. I know one of my principal energy suppliers is 93 million miles away but I feel a much greater affinity with it than the earthbound energy companies. I guess it is because the sun never sends me any bills and 0p/kWh is by far my favorite tarrif! I do wonder if anyone has actually done any research into the psychological impact of having solar panels? It has to be positive. Being a producer of energy as well as a consumer. A feeling of control over your own energy, less dependence on big energy suppliers and the inevitable rise in fuel bills. Yup I'm feeling pretty positive.

Kirklees Budget Amendments - Good, Bad and Bogus

So all can now be revealed. The time for amendments to the Kirklees Budget has passed. We will go the budget meeting next Wednesday with a Labour budget based on the financial constraints forced on us by this Government following their mismanangement of the economy. There are 3 amendments, the Conservatives, the Green Party's and the the Lib Dems. We have gained some things out of the budget process. In our amendment we have the extension of the free insulation scheme Kirklees Warm Zone for another 3 years. I tried to get them to rebrand it 'Green Zone' to avoid confusion with the Governments 'Warm Zone' scheme but also to annoy the Lib Dems (see previous posts!). Of course they weren't having it but the issue of confusion between the 2 schemes is genuine and will have to be addressed at some point soon. Not least because 'Warm Zone' is a brand that we have to pay for. There are also opportunities to bring new measures to the scheme free draughtproofing for vulnerable households, electricity saving measures such as Real Time Displays and Powerdown and deliver them on an area by area basis.

Other things we acheived were in the 'side agreement'.

We have a commitment to continue to support the core funding costs of 'Build' the body which provides training in skills for the building trade for brickies, plumbers and decorators until these are picked up thorugh supportive contracts such as Building Schools for the Future further down the line. This is exactly the sort of project we should be supporting at these times.

We also have a commitment to develop support for projects promoting local food producers in the area. This has been a strong theme for Julie Stewart-Turner our first Green Party Mayor during her year in civic office.

There is a commitment to come up with proposals for a free bus link from Huddersfield Town to the Galpharm Stadium possibly electrically powered. This would provide a link to all the sports and leisure facilities in the area and reduce the need for car travel at a venue which isn't directly served by Public Transport and where the car parks are often full at peak times.

Our big hope is that we will be able to establish a free solar panel scheme for private householders with the capital costs for the Council being met by the new Clean Energy Cashback being introduced this April. We are due a report in June on whether or not it is a goer. The Lib Dems don't like the idea of this scheme and didn't believe it was much worth pursuing. No doubt if we make it work it will be appearing in a Lib Dem leaflet as one of their initiatives. Bitter? Moi? You bet I am!

We have already established the principal of self funding capital for solar projects with the £5million agreed for solar panels for council buildings last year. Providing free solar panels at no net cost to the Council for private householders is more difficult but I don't think impossible.

So what of the Lib Dems Budget amendment? Well surprise surprise we have £2 million to upgrade the insulation of Council Tenants. But I hear you say 'Didn't they claim they had already acheived this in that scurrilous leaflet they posted in Almondbury in December?' (see December post 'Dem Fibs from the Lib Dems') Well yes they did. So they lied, it's what they do. More energy stuff from them £300k for Solar PV for community buildings, some additional monies linked to the boiler scrappage scheme and an energy advice project for the elderly. All good but there is nothing else! If you didn't know better you would think they were desperately trying to win back lost ground on the energy agenda. No matter, if that's the case then the Green Party has acheived more in this budget than simply getting our own initiatives passed we've pushed the other parties on or agenda and got gains for local people.

The Conservatives submitted an amendment it means their Council Tax is a 1% increase instead of a 2% increase. To do that they have further decimated jobs, services and cancelled anti recession measures, but they have the cynical 'We're cheaper' headline for their leaflets.

I'm definitely getting grumpier as I get older.

And the Award goes to........

The 2nd Yorkshire and Humber Microgeneration Awards were held last night and I am I confess feeling a little delicate at the moment and contemplating drinking my first ever can of 'Red Bull' to see if it really does give you a boost!

It was a good night (obviously!) but particularly for Kirklees. The RE-Charge scheme, a Green Party Initiative, won the Best Policy Category for enabling householders to install renewable energy with no upfront costs. Hillside Primary School in Newsome won the Best School Category for producing 55% of its own energy from onsite renewable sources. Green Councillors have been closely involved with the struggle to get the school built to the high standards the teachers, staff and community wanted. Paul Hudson was presenting the evening and it looks like he may well be doing the official opening of Hillside School later in the year.

The event itself at the Royal York Hotel gave a real boost of confidence to the Microgeneration Sector in the region with 170 people there. Noticeably absent were the Regional Development Agency Yorkshire Forward who still 'don't get' microgeneration or its potential to create worthwhile jobs, reduce carbon and fuel costs and to change society. I really believe having talked to council tenants who have had solar panels that microgeneration can fundamentally change the way people regard themselves. No longer are they simply passive consumers of energy but they are generators and producers of their own heat and power. If we create the conditions for hundreds of thousands of householders to use renewable energy in their home then we will truly be creating an 'Energy Generating Democracy'.

This Red Bull stuff works!