LCCC – Keep the champagne on ice

The Low Carbon Contracts Company congratulated itself on results of an independent perception study last week, but did the results really justify this?

Last week the Low Carbon Contracts Company, the government owned counterparty to the Contracts for Difference (CfD) regime, published the results of a perception study, conducted for it by PR company Bell Pottinger. The study measured the LCCC’s success in engaging with key stakeholder groups from contract holders to electricity suppliers and investors to media.

The press release which accompanied this publication jubilantly claimed triumph for the LCCC’s first year – it celebrated its birthday in early August – and chief executive Neil McDermott commented “I’m pleased that the results show we haven’t just done what we were set up to do – but we’ve done it well.”

But hold the cork-popping just a moment. Reading into Bell Pottinger’s report is hardly a celebration-inducing experience.

While there are indeed some positive endorsements for “hand holding” through the complex CfD process and “high awareness” of LCCC across most stakeholder groups (the exceptions being investors, media, consumer representatives and “interested sectors”), the points for improvement are significant.

Almost across the board, LCCC’s website was criticised as being frustrating and challenging to use, while five out the nine groups canvassed asked LCCC to improve clarity around its role in the CfD process. Many were confused about the division of responsibilities between National Grid, the Department for Energy and Climate Change and LCCC while the CfD process itself described as “brutal” and difficult to negotiate.

Other areas of criticism arose around the timely and efficient provision of documents and LCCC’s distinctly London-centric universe which fails to extend it assistance – which was held to be highly valuable – out to the regions (a problem which might easily be linked to a feeling expressed by trade bodies that smaller businesses could be receiving better support in engaging with CfDs).

With challenging times ahead for the CfD regime following the discovery that the second round of auctions will not take place as planned in October this year, it seems likely that stakeholder engagement will come under pressure and, therefore, that basic hygiene factors for engagement in the 21^st century – like social media interaction (which was found to be almost non-existent in LCCC’s case)and user-friendly websites with pertinent, accessible and up to date information will need attention.