Opinion. Brighton and Hove’s Strategic Energy Partnership: Safeguarding the role of Community Energy and the case for a Regional Energy Company
Brighton and Hove’s Strategic Energy Partnership: Safeguarding the role of Community Energy and the case for a Regional Energy Company
Paul Steen
Like many Authorities in the UK, Brighton and Hove Council is considering entering into a Strategic Energy Partnership (SEP), to accelerate investment that supports the transition to net zero. The SEP will be one part of a wider programme of decarbonisation across the whole city that is estimated to cost £2.6bn. Benefitting from lessons and experience, including from Bristol City Leap (BCL), this partnership could potentially cover retro-fitting of domestic and non-domestic buildings in the City, new district heat networks, a rapid roll-out of rooftop solar, ground-mounted solar farms, and EV charging.
There are six issues to consider:
Some things have worked well in Bristol, others not so much;
Bristol was the first mover in this space, and the market has changed since then;
There are significant risks to securing social benefit in this kind of contract;
Heat networks and energy efficiency contracts are complex – Councils and Community organisations need to secure financial capital and the capacity and expertise needed to manage these arrangements;
Community energy organisations risk being marginalised; and
Devolution changes the picture, especially creating opportunities to include areas outside the City.
This paper proposes a formal structuring of a collaborative ecosystem of public, private and community organisations that balances the strengths each brings while holding one another to account. This includes governance at a local level that represents and upholds the needs of energy consumers. The paper advocates for the incorporation of a regional energy organisation, with the capacity to grow and with an open door to allow new members to join over time.
There are some specific actions Brighton and Hove could consider:
Formally establish a collaborative ecosystem of public, private and community organisations that balances the strengths each brings while holding one another to account;
Secure governance at a local level that represents and upholds the needs of energy consumers;
Incorporate a regional energy organisation, with the capacity to grow and with an open door to allow new members to join over time.
Experience from Bristol
Bristol was an early mover in its approach to energy partnership. Some things have worked well in Bristol, others not so much.
Bristol developed their procurement process and launched it in August 2020. They had first mover advantage but a highly complex partnership that took nearly two and a half years to conclude successfully.
In Bristol, community energy organisations were invited to organise early and they developed a shared proposition that was inserted into the procurement process. Organisations including Bristol Energy Cooperative and Bristol Energy Network formed a collective group and prepared a paper, funded by the Council, that set out the potential role of community energy within City Leap. This developed into a feasibility paper and a clear “ask” to bidders: funding, project opportunities, and a mechanism for how community-led or community-partnered projects would be developed. The paper was shared with bidders as part of the procurement dialogue, creating an expectation that bidders should respond with their own community benefit proposals.
The winning bidder’s proposal established a dedicated community energy fund. It was anticipated that community organisations could help develop renewable energy projects, potentially with financial involvement and returns flowing back to the community. The Bristol experience has demonstrated how over £1M in community benefit funding can deliver locally. It has, however, not yet met the expected intent for project development, asset ownership and community financial participation.
Heat networks show both the opportunity and the limitation. Vattenfall published a paper explaining how community groups might engage with the Bristol heat network. Bristol Energy Cooperative received funding from the benefits fund to complete a study on community-owned heat networks. This considered four specific sites against agreed parameters and explored feasibility for air-source and water-source heat. This is valuable development work, but the lack of progress towards implementation illustrates that community participation in heat networks is complex, technical, and highly dependent on clear routes from feasibility into funded delivery.
A further aspect concerns governance and accountability. A key role of community energy organisations is to advocate for the partnership and contribute to its legitimacy by demonstrating how the partnership connects with local communities and social benefit. The Bristol concession envisaged a community energy forum and events to engage community organisations, but these commitments do not appear to have matured into a strong formal governance channel. A heat network advisory panel exists and operates, but it is understood to function more as an information-sharing session than as a formal accountability mechanism capable of shaping the partnership’s priorities.
The result is a pattern in which community engagement can become broadcast-led: the partnership provides updates, community organisations give feedback, but there are limited formal channels through which that feedback changes decisions. A community forum, advisory panel or events programme is not the same as embedded governance. If community organisations are expected to lend legitimacy, develop project pipelines, build public trust and support behaviour change, they need defined rights, responsibilities and routes to influence.
There is also a procurement lesson. Once the strategic partner is appointed, there may be limited ability to direct award project development or delivery work to community organisations unless that route has been anticipated and built into the original procurement structure. In Bristol, a stronger model might have pre-procured defined roles for community energy within the partnership, including routes for shared ownership of assets and mechanisms to benefit from community organisations’ ability to raise local finance. Without those mechanisms, community organisations may remain grant recipients or consultees rather than co-developers, co-investors or long-term asset partners.
A changing market
Since the launch of Bristol City Leap in 2020, a number of authorities across the UK have followed suit, to embark on procurement of partners that deliver equivalent services under various models. The UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has run their Advanced Zoning Programme for heat networks, and in Scotland each authority has published their Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy. As a result of the fast growing demand in the market, providers have become selective in responding. That demand for investment and services has created an imbalance and a number of recent procurements have ended with a single bidder, or in a small number of cases have received zero interest.
Brighton and Hove’s strategic energy partnership is likely to be an attractive opportunity and the point being made here is not to imply that there will be a lack of interest in this opportunity. The risk is to the remaining Authorities in the Combined Authority like Crawley, Lewes and Eastbourne that, once Brighton and Hove have secured a partner, may individually be less attractive.
Brighton and Hove Council are understood to propose the procurement of a Strategic Energy Partner as a bilateral agreement between Authority and Private Sector Partner. The procurement will specify a series of outcomes and deliverables. This will set out expectations to develop and deliver a range of energy solutions along with a series of related social benefits. Competitive tension between bidders will afford Brighton and Hove, as the procuring authority, a negotiating position contractually to secure these social outcomes. As noted above, a number of recent procurements have seen competition fall away leaving a single bidder. Should this occur, it leaves a weak negotiating position for the Authority. This diminishes the Authority’s ability to secure wider social outcomes. Simply put, there is significant risk that the social benefit will be watered-down in the final contract agreement. To address this the Council should present a reference investment portfolio.
Securing social outcomes through community energy organisations, as noted earlier, should occur when they are embedded in the Strategic Energy Partnership ecosystem with clear responsibility. This would direct a sustaining revenue stream via return from social benefits and long-term economic growth of the partnership.
Heat networks and energy efficiency contracts are complex
The role of the energy partner is to bring technical, commercial, business operation and legal expertise to the development, design, build and operation of energy systems. Case studies of energy partnerships to date have shown how this expertise has grown through recruitment in the delivery partner. The Councils already have an effective team working on the procurement of the partner, and experience from other partnerships suggests that, once it is in place, that team will evolve into contract management. The key point here being that there is a sustained role for the Council to hold the partner to account.
Glasgow City Council are exploring separation of the delivery vehicle and climate investment fund. If there is contract management of a separate incorporated delivery organisation and expertise that can grow and develop, including working with capacity in community energy organisations, then the principal role of the private sector partner is to provide the capital that can be deployed to deliver projects. The private sector partner will also bring commercial and financial guidance and expertise to develop knowledge and capacity within the delivery organisation.
Community energy risks being marginalised
Traditionally Community Energy offers a ‘Hands-Off’ model, in which, typically, Community Energy Groups raise equity locally, then take responsibility for project managing the sub-contracted installation, management, maintenance and insurance of renewable energy infrastructure, recouping the cost by charging domestic and non-domestic customers a below-market price for electricity – and simultaneously contributing to social programmes.
Community Energy offers a trusted intermediary role in the domains of motivation and behaviour change. Working with businesses, households and landlords the SEP can implement information-based strategies including things like simple messaging, in-home displays, factual feedback, peer to peer learning and energy labels. A comparative study of citizen engagement across collective energy initiatives (Energy Research & Social Science, 2026) demonstrated that:
Community groups increase participation and trust.
Collective ownership leads to reduced consumption, load‑shifting, and greater acceptance of local energy infrastructure.
Transparent feedback (dashboards, usage reports) significantly improves energy‑saving behaviours.
However, community energy organisations must be allowed to integrate in the partnership and be consulted on a sustainable delivery model proposition before procurement is finalised. The procurement should require bidders to make specific commitments to that proposition, not merely to make general social value commitments. Community benefit funds are useful, but they should not be treated as a substitute for project rights, revenue participation or asset ownership. Routes for community organisations to co-develop projects, access alternative forms of finance that they are uniquely placed to secure and share ownership should be designed into the partnership from the start. Governance forums where CE have a voice should have defined purposes, escalation routes and influence over decisions, rather than operating only as information sessions. Community energy organisations can add legitimacy, trust and local intelligence, but that value should be matched by formal responsibilities and resources.
Heat networks require particular care with respect to community and consumer engagement. It is clear from Bristol that community enthusiasm and feasibility funding are not enough, and success comes with the addition of a clear pathway to investable projects and customer participation.
Devolution changes the picture
Brighton and Hove is part of the new Sussex and Brighton Strategic Authority (SBSA). SBSA is a newly established regional governance body covering East Sussex, West Sussex, and Brighton & Hove transitioning to whichever unitaries come out of local government review, with a directly elected mayor scheduled for 2028.
In the current paradigm, each Authority across the UK is looking to run their own procurement process. This has involved a series of individual procurements from Authorities to secure delivery partners, under different models, for heat networks and in some cases wider programmes of decarbonisation. These processes are live and it is too early to determine the success of this approach. However, it is worth hypothesising that the procurement cost and long-term bureaucracy of procuring and running multiple energy organisations may less efficient than a regional energy organisation.
There are common bureaucracies across delivery models that regionally could benefit from shared approaches and if not employed may result in inefficiency, repetition of learning (mistakes) and not sharing of best practice. For example the contract management and business operation across many strategic energy partnerships have significant common bureaucracy. This shared approach requires constituent authorities being willing to work together and accept that they may give up some control. It is notable that there are varied political make-ups across (and within) different parts of Sussex.
Furthermore, the aggregation of portfolios of opportunity at regional levels should be more effective at attracting investment in a competitive market, when many Local Authorities are bringing investment prospectuses to market. For example, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority was the only Advanced Zone completed at a regional level. This has been followed by a series of individual procurements from Authorities to secure delivery partners, under different models, for heat networks and in some cases wider programmes of decarbonisation.
Lessons for Brighton and Hove: Community Energy in the Strategic Energy Partnership
The Bristol experience suggests a series of practical and structural lessons for Brighton and Hove.
Community organisations in Brighton are already well established and resourced and may be capable of fulfilling some of the capacity gap that exists. They may also be able to access funding that would otherwise not be open to the partnership. A particular focus for this community involvement may be in project development.
Brighton and Hove Energy Services Co-op (BHESCO), Brighton Energy Coop (BEC) and Ovesco are the community energy bodies in the Sussex and Brighton and Hove area. They have made major on-the-ground contributions to the roll-out of renewable energy. They already employ staff and have roots in the existing business and local communities. Brighton and Hove City Council has been strongly supportive of community energy projects in its decarbonisation strategy.
BHESCO and BEC have been engaged in background research and roundtables to explore means of overcoming the barriers to community energy in Brighton and Hove and Climate:Change published a Meeting Report.
This research identified an urgent need to scale Community Energy. The proposed strategic energy partnership in Brighton is founded on a relationship between Local Authority and private sector partner. Community involvement does not have to be through the existing organisations and the partner could offer a crowd funding or community share offer.
What if Community Energy could be brought into the governance and integrating its USP, which is the social benefit and the scope for community wealth-building? An alternative governance model is proposed that incorporates public, private and community organisations that are granted a degree of control and balanced with formal duties and responsibility.
Proposed: A Regional Energy Company
Local Authorities and the emerging Brighton and Sussex Combined Authority share common social and environmental goals but are developing their own strategy and solutions to deliver these challenges independently of one another.
Sharing contract management across the Combined Authority would avoid duplication and bureaucracy. It is worth observing here that Crawley already owns its town centre heat network and there will be many other examples of experience that already exists and can be shared.
There is an opportunity, that does not delay the process already under way, for Brighton and Hove to leave the door open for other Authorities to participate in the SEP. This builds a collective approach and leverages the scale that Brighton and Hove offers to enable an effective partnership across the Combined Authority.
The proposal is the incorporation of a Regional Energy Company (REC) dedicated to energy efficiency, the decarbonisation of electricity and domestic and non-domestic heat for public and private properties across Brighton and Sussex. Investing in the development and delivery of new infrastructure with extended paybacks from a standing start requires an appetite for risk. What if the starting point were to bring together a portfolio of the existing assets, expertise and management structures? This leads to efficiency through sharing knowledge and bureaucracy. In Sussex a core set of assets are currently owned and operated independently by the Authorities and the Community Energy Cooperatives. The existing portfolio of assets provides early certainty of secure initial revenue streams.
The Regional Energy Company would form partnerships across this group of collaborative organisations. The value that this organisation brings is efficiency and productivity from aggregating intellectual capital that has built and operates these assets and consolidating shared services and many of the bureaucracies that would otherwise be duplicated.
The Regional Energy Company will properly value and combine a portfolio of assets that are attractive to sustainable investment, leveraging a blend of public and private capital and community participation. It will establish frameworks for procurement and collaboration with supply chains. The Energy Company will support consumers, communities, local authorities and government objectives. It will enable decarbonisation targets for heat; foster secure local supply chains; and deliver competitive customer pricing; positioning itself as a flagship initiative.
The purpose of this collective approach would be to:
Take on financial, commercial, technical and customer service responsibility for operational liabilities relating to assets, including but not limited to efficiency and performance, customer assurance and regulatory compliance.
Establish a concession or joint venture structure that retains appropriate levels of control for democratic local interest. Participation most likely from the local authority, anchor customers and community organisations representing individual domestic customers interests.
Addressing this at a regional scale will bring economies of scale that can address common issues vs an alternative that requires repeatedly resolving identical issues in multiple organisations that currently operate networks.
The REC can standardise approaches to development, delivery and operation across the portfolio.
The REC would be in a position, once it has aggregated multiple joint venture shareholdings into a single portfolio, to leverage funding secured against that diverse portfolio of assets – vs each institution raising finance against their own project. The REC would have greater negotiation power by combining the sum of the individual parts.
The Energy Company would bring credibility and legitimacy to negotiation of new customers, with an intent to shorten the period from initial engagement to connection for customers. Ultimately even getting to a point where customers are seeking connection to the network.
The Energy Company would have a single, and more powerful, voice than multiple individual heat network companies, and can communicate with the public and engage at a political level as the market framework for heat networks emerges.
_____________
Paul Steen is a chartered civil engineer and a graduate of Cambridge University. His career has been dedicated to shaping fair, future‑focused infrastructure systems. With 20 years at Ramboll including as Director of its UK heat networks business, and later as Head of Business Development at Vattenfall Heat UK, Paul has been central to advancing major district heating investments. His governance and design leadership spans many of Scotland’s most significant heat networks, including Midlothian Energy Limited, Queens Quay, Stirling Forthside and Clyde Gateway. He also worked with wider teams at Ramboll and Vattenfall on projects including the national heat map for Scotland, the heat from the underground project at Bunhill, and Bristol City Leap, among others.
Perspective pieces are the responsibility of the authors, and do not commit Climate:Change in any way.
Photo by Bill Mead on Unsplash