CRC: DECC publishes five discussion papers on simplifying the scheme

Practical Law UK Legal Update 2-504-6025 (Approx. 16 pages)

CRC: DECC publishes five discussion papers on simplifying the scheme

by PLC Environment

Background

Terms that appear with capital letters in this update are defined in Practice note, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: PLC glossary and abbreviations.

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) is a new emissions trading scheme for non-energy intensive private and public sector organisations in the UK. The CRC was introduced by the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 (SI 2010/768) (CRC Order).

Participants are required to surrender Allowances to cover every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with their energy consumption in the buildings that they own and occupy. The CRC will run until 31 March 2043 and is divided into seven Phases. The Introductory Phase of the CRC currently runs from 1 April 2010 until 31 March 2013. For more information about the Phases, see CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: PLC timeline.

Since taking power in May 2010, the coalition government has indicated on a number of occasions that it thought the CRC was unnecessarily complicated and that it would review the design of the scheme to simplify it.

In September 2010, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) published a report suggesting changes that could be made to Phase 2 of the CRC.

In October 2010, the government announced in its Spending Review (SR 2010) that:

The first Fixed Price Sale of Allowances in the Introductory Phase would be delayed until 2012.
Revenues raised from the sale of Allowances under the scheme would no longer be recycled back to Participants but instead would be used to support public finances.

On 17 November 2010, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the devolved administrations issued a consultation on amendments to the CRC Order. The consultation document was accompanied by a Draft CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme (Amendment) Order 2011 (CRC Amendment Order). The government decided to consult on changes to the CRC in two stages as the majority of issues that have been raised regarding simplifying the CRC are likely to take effect in relation to Phase 2. These issues will require more parliamentary time than would be possible given that organisations are currently required to register for Phase 2 between April and September 2011.

The consultation in November (the first consultation) proposed a number of limited changes to the scheme that can be made before April 2011 (principally to push back the deadlines relating to Phase 2). The first consultation closed on 17 December 2010 and it is anticipated that the CRC Amendment Order will be laid before Parliament between February and March 2011 so that the amendments will come into force on 1 April 2011.

The government said that a second consultation, which will deal with the wider changes to the scheme, would take place later in 2011.

For more information on:

The current design of the CRC, see Practice note, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: overview.
The CCC's recommendations for Phase 2, see Legal update, CRC: Committee on Climate Change advises government on significant changes to the scheme.
The changes announced in the SR 2010, see Legal update, CRC: Government scraps recycling of revenue from the sale of allowances.
The proposals announced in the consultation in November 2010, see Legal update, CRC: DECC consults on amendments to the CRC Order 2010.
The CRC in general, see the CRC Survival Kit.

The discussion papers

On 25 January 2011, DECC published five discussion papers on simplifying the CRC. The government says that the discussion papers do not set out government policy. Rather, the purpose of the discussion papers is to indicate the areas of the scheme that the government considers are a priority for simplification and to generate informal discussion between the government and Participants. The government is calling for written feedback from interested parties on how these aspects of the scheme could be simplified by 11 March 2011.

The five aspects of the scheme covered by the discussion papers are:

The government says that there are a number of other aspects of the CRC that could also be revisited, including the:

Definition of transport used in the scheme.
Treatment of public versus private sector Participants.
Energy threshold for qualification.
Treatment of heat.
Landlord and tenant relationships and responsibilities.

Ideas for simplification of the CRC that arise from the dialogue generated by these discussion papers will help inform further amendments to the CRC Order. However, the government notes that any formal legislative proposals would be the subject of public consultation, with the intention that they would come into force before registration for Phase 2 begins in April 2013.

The government said that, although it proposes to simplify the CRC, it is essential that all Participants continue to comply with the existing scheme in full as set out in the current legislation. The CRC remains a mandatory scheme and organisations that fail to comply will be subject to enforcement action. The government expects Participants should continue to comply in full with the scheme and use the Introductory Phase to gain experience on reporting, complying and surrendering Allowances in the CRC.

Private sector organisation rules

For information about how the CRC currently applies to different types of private sector organisations, see Practice note, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: impact on corporate structures.

The existing organisational rules regarding private sector organisations were designed to:

Ensure that the scheme captures a wide range of large organisations and that, therefore, the emissions coverage of the scheme is extensive.
Align responsibility for emissions with energy use where possible.
Be legally robust and enforceable and to use existing company law.
Be flexible to accommodate major changes to businesses during each Phase.
Ensure that the scheme obtained board-level engagement.
Minimise the administrative burden on Participants where possible.
Accommodate a range of organisational structures including joint ventures (JVs) and private equity and venture capital funds.

The government says that feedback from Participants has flagged a number of difficult issues regarding the organisation rules, including:

Determining the Group structure and the Highest Parent Undertaking (HPU) for large and complex organisations (for example, JVs) which has led to unanticipated levels of administrative burden for some organisations.
Where an HPU is an overseas entity, the requirement to nominate a UK Group member as the Account Holder has caused difficulties and placed a significant administrative burden on organisations where there is no common UK parent for the Group members based in the UK.
The requirement to participate as a Group and to allocate responsibility for compliance with a Group member may not align with existing energy management structures, particularly where legal ownership and management responsibilities are separate.
Identifying the Group structure of trusts and some private equity funds.
The concept of Significant Group Undertakings (SGUs) and Designated Changes do not capture a number of important business changes (such as the transfer of significant assets) which may impact on League Table positions.

The first discussion paper Private sector organisation rules sets out six options for amending these rules and also discusses some of the benefits and problems with each option.

Option 1

Retain the current organisation rules but allow the disaggregation of any Undertaking in the Group.

This option would extend the current rules that allow SGUs to disaggregate and participate independently in the scheme. The current requirement that SGUs can only be disaggregated, where to do so would not cause the remainder of the Group to fall under the Qualifying Amount (of 6,000 megawatt hours (MWh)), would also be removed.

The discussion paper says that the government could allocate the option to disaggregate to any of the following:

The HPU.
The Undertaking that is responsible for registration (that is, the Account Holder).
The Undertaking that wishes to disaggregate.

This option may require the extension of the Designated Change rules to account for these changes to a Participant's structure.

The discussion paper says that the government and interested parties will need to consider whether this option could lead to Participants avoiding liability under the scheme. It also notes that, as the option to disaggregate SGUs was not taken up by many Participants in the Introductory Phase, it is unclear whether further flexibility would be used in practice.

Option 2

Take a bottom-up approach for qualification with optional grouping for participation.

Under this option, qualification for the CRC would be assessed by single Undertakings rather than at Group level. An Undertaking would be defined in the same way as in the current CRC Order.

To maintain the emissions coverage of the CRC, it is likely that this option would include a lower Qualifying Amount. Organisations would be allowed to aggregate into groups for compliance purposes but would then need to nominate an entity within that grouping to be responsible for compliance. Those Undertakings that did group together would be jointly and severally liable. This option might require revisions to the Designate Change rules, or even replacing them with annual registrations.

The discussion paper says that the government and interested parties will need to consider the impact of this option on the League Table and whether extending the coverage of the scheme by lowering the Qualifying Amount would introduce a disproportionate burden on new smaller organisations in Phase 2. This option may increase the participation costs for organisations if a number of Undertakings in their Group are registering, reporting and buying Allowances.

The discussion paper says that consideration should be given to including provisions in this option that allow flexibility for participating in the CRC where assets are held in a fiduciary capacity (see Option 4 below).

Option 3

Group structure could be determined following accounting rules.

Under this option, participation in the CRC would be determined on the basis of a group that was determined by the accounting rules. Responsibility for compliance would be placed on the parent company that consolidates the accounts for that group and the company itself.

The discussion paper says that the government and interested parties will need to ensure that there is no double counting or carbon leakage from the scheme.

Further consideration will need to be given to how entities that are exempt from preparing accounts, or where consolidation is not required, would be treated under this option.

Any potential loss of coverage of emissions from the scheme owing to differences in determining a group under the accounting rules might mean that the Qualifying Amount would need to be lowered.

Option 4

New provisions to address the treatment of assets held in a fiduciary capacity (such as shareholdings by trustees) could be applied alongside:

existing CRC rules;
the options set out in the discussion paper; or
other options that emerge during the dialogue between government and interested parties.

The discussion paper notes that such rules would help to respect the separateness of individual trusts, which has been a particular area of concern for many trusts and private equity funds under the current CRC rules.

The discussion paper does not say what these new provisions might be, although it says that robust legal definitions would need to be devised to delineate legal structures where assets are held in a fiduciary capacity without providing a loophole for these legal structures to avoid the CRC.

Option 5

The overseas HPU rule could be replaced with a UK HPU rule.

Under this option, the current rule that groups organisations together under the HPU in their Group (which can be an overseas Undertaking) would be replaced with a rule that would group an organisation under the HPU in the UK. Where no UK HPU exists, UK members of a Group would participate as single Undertakings.

The discussion paper says this option could be considered in combination with either the existing organisational rules or Option 3 (see above).

Option 5 might require a lower Qualifying Amount.

The discussion paper says that the government and interested parties will need to consider whether it is fair to treat entities owned by UK parents and those owned by overseas parents differently.

Option 6

Review the rules on Designated Changes as some of the preceding Options may require a change to the Designated Change rules.

The discussion paper sets out two changes that could be introduced to the Designated Change rules, whether in combination with the current organisational rules or any of the preceding Options:

The use of the Significant Group Undertaking (SGU) concept could be removed in the context of Designated Changes. Presumably, this would mean every change to an organisation would need to be reported.
Another way to amend the Designated Change rules would be to decide the "re-baseline" when x% of an organisation's energy use is transferred or acquired, as opposed to focusing on the transfer of Undertakings.

For information on how the Designated Change rules currently apply, see Practice note, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: impact of changes to a private sector organisation.

Supply rules

For information about the way the supply rules currently apply, see:

In designing the supply rules, the government intended that responsibility for energy supplies should rest with the party that can do most to improve energy efficiency. Feedback has indicated that the current supply rules (especially where they are applied between Undertakings in the same Group or in complex outsourcing or in private finance initiative (PFI) arrangements) are one of the biggest contributors to the complexity of the CRC. Questions to the Environment Agency's CRC Helpdesk (and other feedback) have indicated a number of scenarios where the energy supply relationship does not meet the criteria in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the CRC Order.

The second discussion paper sets out eight options to simplify the supply rules.

Option 1

Instead of having to meet a number of tests to qualify as a supply under the CRC, a counterparty to an energy contract could be deemed to be supplied with energy under the provisions of a contract.

The discussion paper says that the current requirement for a payment to be made for the supply and for that supply to be measured by a meter or be a Dynamic Supply would no longer apply. (PLC's interpretation of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the CRC Order is that there is currently no requirement for a payment to be made. Rather, we believe the reference to payment is an attempt to try and establish a contract between the supplying party and the receiving party.)

The discussion paper says that, in order to deal with outsourced procurement of energy supplies (for example, by a facilities management company), the supply could be deemed to be made to the organisation that receives the supply from the organisation that is the counterparty to the energy supply contract, except where a landlord contracts for energy supplies on behalf of its tenants.

Organisations that procure energy for other parties and that are seeking to take advantage of the counterparty rule, would need to provide documented evidence of the transfer of responsibility for procurement of the energy supplies.

This option has the benefit of removing the requirement to identify a meter in order to establish responsibility for a supply, which would bring more private wire arrangements into the CRC and simplify the treatment of complex supply chains. It would also bring unmetered supplies that are not currently covered by the CRC (that is, those supplies that are measured on a passive or non-half hourly basis) into the scheme. It would solve the treatment of Group structures that have a central procurement function where there may be a split between the Undertaking that procures the energy supply and the Undertaking that funds the supply.

The following table sets out whether the landlord or the tenant would be responsible for a supply under Option 1. This table is based on the one that appears on page 5 of DECC's discussion paper.

Scenario	Responsibility for a supply under the CRC Order	Responsibility under Option 1
Tenant with counterparty status	Tenant	Tenant as counterparty
Landlord with counterparty status	Landlord - exception to the Unconsumed Supply rule	Landlord as counterparty
Non-occupying third party (for example, a facilities management company) with counterparty status and with a contractual relationship with the landlord	Landlord	Landlord, applying the counterparty rule
Non-occupying third party (for example, a facilities management company) with counterparty status and with a contractual relationship with the tenant	Tenant - exception to the Unconsumed Supply rule	Tenant, applying the counterparty rule

Option 2

The supply and Self-supply rules could also be applied at Participant level, rather than at the Undertaking or Public Body level as is currently the case. This would simplify the treatment of intra-group supply arrangements under the CRC.

Option 3

Under this option the Self-supply provision for electricity and gas supplies would be retained, together with the exclusions for licensed activities (that is, electricity used for generating, transmitting or distributing electricity and gas used for transporting, shipping or supplying gas).

The government is seeking feedback on whether the exclusion of these licensed activities should be extended to electricity and gas supplies from third parties either:

Entirely; or
Only when assessing if an organisation should participate in the CRC.

Option 4

Under this option, the CRC would only apply to electricity and gas supplies and would exclude other fuels defined in Schedule 1 to the CRC Order. This would reduce the emissions coverage of the scheme but significantly simplify the administrative burden on Participants.

The 90% rule (that the aggregate of the Participant's Core Emissions, EU ETS Emissions and CCA Emissions must equal 90% of that Participant's Footprint Emissions) may need to be amended (perhaps to 100%) to avoid significant emissions loss from the CRC.

The discussion paper says that such an approach may incentivise organisations to switch from electricity and gas to other fuels, to avoid the CRC or to reduce the emissions that they have to report on.

Option 5

The government proposes to tie the supply definition to the supply to a site which would have the effect of excluding the supplies made for the purposes of transport. The government is calling for feedback on how a building-related supply could be defined.

Option 6

Under this option, organisations would be allowed to allocate responsibility for supplies under the CRC between themselves.

However, this option would be subject to the proviso that, supplies that would have been included in the scheme when assigned to the counterparty, are not eligible for transfer outside of the CRC to an organisation that subsequently does not qualify for participation. A counterparty would need to complete some form of registration before transferring responsibility for emissions, to ensure that the transfer was captured within the scheme.

While not necessarily a simplification, this option would provide flexibility.

Option 7

Under this option, responsibility for emissions would be assigned on the basis of consumption rather than supply (effectively following the "polluter pays" principle). This would reverse the treatment of supplies that landlord's procure for their tenants and make tenants responsible for such supplies.

The discussion paper says that, although this would reflect who consumes the energy, it would not necessarily reflect the parties' respective abilities to reduce consumption and, therefore, emissions over time. This approach would also require the engagement of all elements of a supply chain, to avoid double reporting of emissions by parties.

The government is asking for feedback on how this approach could work, including the data requirements on landlords to facilitate this option where a tenant does not know their exact consumption (for example, where the supply to the tenant is not separately metered).

Option 8

Under this option, the 90% rule (see Option 4 above) would be amended or removed to facilitate the removal of the distinction between Core and Residual Supplies and meter definitions. This would also remove the requirement for a Footprint Report to be submitted in each Phase.

The discussion paper sets out three sub-options:

Remove the 90% rule and introduce a requirement for organisations to report annually on their total electricity and gas supplies (where these are outside of the EU ETS and a Climate Change Agreement (CCA)).
Retain the 90% rule but remove the requirement to submit a Footprint Report in each Phase. Participants would still be required to keep records of their compliance with the 90% rule and make those records available for audit where required, but they would not need to submit a Footprint Report. The distinction between Core and Residual Supplies would also be removed so that Participants would have flexibility when choosing which sources to include in order to meet the 90% rule.
A site-based de minimis approach could be taken instead of the 90% rule, so that Participants would have to include any energy or fuel source that constituted more than a minimum percentage of that site's total emissions in their Annual Report. Participants would be required to keep records of their compliance with the site-based rule and make those records available for audit where required. The requirement to submit a Footprint Report would be removed.

Qualification Criteria

For information about the current Qualification Criteria, see Practice note, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: overview: Qualification Criteria.

The government says it is aware that the current Qualification Criteria cause a perverse incentive for organisations not to install smart meters because such meters would then count towards Qualifying Electricity that is used to assess whether that organisation has to participate in the next Phase of the CRC.

In order to address this problem and also to simplify the Qualification Criteria, the government is considering focusing both of the Qualification Criteria on Settled Half Hourly Meters (Settled HHMs). As is currently the case with the first of the Qualification Criteria, no distinction would be drawn between Mandatory HHMs and Voluntary HHMs given the difficulty that organisations would have in distinguishing between these meters. When assessing if it needed to participate in the CRC, an organisation would not have to calculate or report, at registration, electricity supplied through a Non-settled HHM (that is, an Automatic Meter Reading meter (ARM meter)). As is currently the case, Participants would have to include data about electricity supplies made through Non-settled HHMs in their Footprint and Annual Reports.

The third discussion paper says that if this change is introduced, the government would consider reducing the Qualifying Amount to ensure that emissions coverage of, and the number of Participants in, the CRC remained consistent with that in the Introductory Phase.

Other options to address the problem of the perverse incentive not to install smart meters are as follows:

Restricting both of the Qualification Criteria so that they only apply to Mandatory HHMs.
Changing the second of the Qualification Criteria so that all electricity supplied to an organisation would count towards the Qualifying Amount. This option would involve raising the Qualifying Amount from 6,000 MWh so that the scope of the scheme was not extended.

Reducing overlap between the CRC, CCAs and the EU ETS

For information about the way the CRC currently overlaps with the EU ETS and CCAs, see Practice note, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: exclusions and exemptions.

Participants in the Introductory Phase have raised concerns about:

The administrative burden on Participants that are also covered by CCAs to prove that they are eligible for a CCA exemption under the CRC.
How the CRC overlaps with the reporting and financial aspects of wider greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting and the Climate Change Levy (CCL).

The fourth discussion paper sets out three options for tackling this regulatory overlap.

Option 1

This option would involve a blanket exclusion. This would mean that a Group that has an Undertaking that is in the EU ETS or that has a CCA would be excluded from the CRC.

The discussion paper says that this option would significantly reduce the emissions coverage of the scheme as entire Groups would be taken out of the CRC where a small part of their organisation was covered by a CCA or the EU ETS.

Option 2

This option would require organisations to assess if they needed to participate in the CRC based on electricity supplies that are not covered by a CCA.

This would enable the removal of the 90% rule (see Supply rules above).

Groups that were not excluded under this approach, but that had emissions covered by a CCA or the EU ETS, would not have to report those emissions under the CRC. Their other energy supplies would have to be reported, as would be the case for other Participants that did not have emissions covered by the EU ETS or a CCA.

Option 3

More fundamentally, recent feedback has suggested that the CRC should be merged with other climate change policies, such as:

The Climate Change Levy (CCL).
Wider GHG reporting (to create a duty on companies to report on these emissions, as is currently being considered under the Climate Change Act 2008). For more information on this, see Legal update, Defra publishes review on corporate reporting of emissions.
Some form of Display Energy Certificate (DEC) that would be extended to the private sector. For more information about DECs, see Practice note, Energy performance certificates: Display energy certificates (DECs).

The government is calling for views on more fundamental reform to the CRC but notes that if those proposals do not allow for a market for trading allowances, the revised CRC scheme would not be covered by the powers in the Climate Change Act 2008 to set up emissions trading schemes and the current CRC scheme would need to be abolished. More fundamental reform to the CRC would require a change to primary legislation. It is not clear from the discussion paper whether the government is prepared to do this.

Timing and frequency of Allowances sales from 2012 onwards

The government announced in the Spending Review 2010 (SR 2010) that the first sale of Allowances for 2011/12 emissions will now take place in 2012 rather than 2011 (see Legal update, CRC: Government scraps recycling of revenue from the sale of allowances).

The SR 2010 did not specify when in 2012 the first sale of Allowances would take place. However, given that:

The purchase of Allowances for the Annual Reporting Year (ARY) 2011/13 will now be retrospective (that is, it will take place at the end of that ARY); and
That allowances for 2011/12 have to be surrendered by the last working day of July 2012,

the sale of Allowances in 2012 will need to take place sometime between April and July 2012.

Feedback from some Participants has indicated that the auctioning of Allowances that is currently proposed from Phase 2 onwards adds complexity to the scheme. The CCC recommended that consideration be given to extending the Fixed Price Sale (FPS) of Allowances in the Introductory Phases to Phase 2 and subsequent Phases.

Options for the sale of Allowances in the Introductory Phase

The discussion paper says that forecasting and energy management remain fundamental to the CRC in the longer term in order to ensure that cost-effective opportunities will be fully taken up. Further, any decision in respect of the sales in the Introductory Phase should not prevent trading in Phase 2 and subsequent Phases. This is the first indication the government has given since the CCC's report was published that the trading element of the CRC may be retained.

To ensure that Allowances can be traded in Phase 2 and subsequent Phases, any decision on the sale of Allowances in the Introductory Phase needs to allow for transition from end of year compliance sales to forecast sales in Phase 2. Any simple transition will result in a double sale in one year; either at the end of the Introductory Phase or at the start of Phase 2.

Feedback from Participants is that they are concerned at the prospect of being required to buy two year's worth of Allowances in a single year.

Option 1: Under this option two FPSs would be held in each ARY from 2013/14 onwards, one sale would be a forecast sale and would take place at the beginning of the ARY in April (for example, April 2013). The second sale would be in May/June following the end of that ARY (for example, May/June 2014). The second sale would provide an opportunity for a Participant to either:
- buy all its Allowances for the relevant ARY; or
- buy additional Allowances for the ARY if their forecast had been inaccurate.
The Allowances in the second sale could be held at a higher fixed price which would limit the price of Allowances in the Secondary Market to ensure it did not peak if the market was squeezed. It would also incentivise Participants to move to forecasting their emissions and planning their energy management. Allowances sold in the April FPS would not be able to be surrendered in respect of the ARY that had just ended (that is, carry back would not be permitted from the lower price forecasting FPS).
This option avoids a compulsory double sale of Allowances by allowing Participants to decide whether to move to forecasted Allowance sales and, if so, how quickly to make that move.
Rules regarding banking of Allowances (see Practice note, CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme: overview: Vintage of Allowances) would need to be reviewed in light of the design of the sale of Allowances in Phase 2.
Option 2: Under this option, multiple Allowances sales would be held throughout the year (for example, every two months). This option would enable a transition to forecasted sales in Phase 2 and subsequent Phases but would give Participants a greater choice as to when to purchase their forecasted emissions. It would also avoid a compulsory double sale of Allowances. A price differential could be used to incentivise the purchase of Allowances on a forecast basis.

Options for sales of Allowances in Phase 2 and onwards

The fifth discussion paper says that, once the Footprint and Annual Reports for the 2010/11 ARY have been submitted in July 2011, the government will have more accurate data about the size of the emissions covered by the CRC sector and the emissions abatement potential of that sector. Until that time, the government does not have a preferred mechanism for the sale of Allowances in Phase 2 and subsequent Phases.

The discussion paper sets out some potential options for the sale of Allowances in Phase 2 and subsequent Phases:

Auction Allowances but use a different auctioning mechanism (for example, the open ascending price auction also known as the "English auction").
Auction Allowances but reduce complexity and costs by removing the Safety Valve and replace it with regular higher price sales of Allowances (which could be linked to the price of EU ETS allowances). This would incentivise Participants to use the auction rather than the higher price sales.
Auction Allowances with a minimum price. This was the CCC's alternative option 1.
Replace the auction with a sale of unlimited Allowances at a fixed price (basically, this extends the FPSs in the Introductory Phase to Phase 2 and subsequent Phases). This was the CCC's alternative option 2.
Extend the proposed design of the FPSs in the Introductory Phase (that is, hold two FPSs at different prices each year).
Use a carbon exchange.
More fundamental reform of the scheme.

The government will also consider any other alternatives that may be proposed by interested parties.

Comment

These discussion papers indicate that the government is prepared to make wide-ranging changes to the CRC from Phase 2 onwards.

The discussion paper on the timing and frequency of Allowances from 2012 onwards is the first time since the CCC reported in September 2010 that the government has indicated it is minded to retain the forecasting and trading elements of the CRC. Many Participants and commentators had assumed that the revised scheme would focus on the reporting of emissions and purchasing of Allowances on a retrospective basis.

Any proposed changes to the CRC Order that the government decides to take forward will be the subject of a formal public consultation later in 2011. Given the wide-ranging nature of the options set out in the various discussion papers, now is the time for interested parties to comment and influence the government's thinking about how to improve the CRC. Once the number of options set out in these papers have been whittled down to form legislative proposals, it will be harder to convince the government to change their course of action.

CRC: DECC publishes five discussion papers on simplifying the scheme | Practical Law