EVALUATION

AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LCNF
Another respondent believed that more focus should be put on cross-industry
collaboration – providing electric transport as an example of where collaboration between
the energy and transport sectors will be vital for success.
The problems of research type external funding were pointed out by a respondent – too
time consuming to set up, project approval sometimes requires to be approved prior to the
start and you have to share ideas and possibly lose control. They went on to say there
are small pots of Government funding for some things (export, manufacturing, and training
for example) that are much easier to access.
Finally, one respondent felt that engineering research only focuses on the technical
considerations of the energy transition, but not the institutional, regulatory, investment,
political or social dimensions – adding on that work on customer energy practices is again
separate. They highlight UKERC as a place that does try to work on all of the aspects
together, but say it has not had a significant role in LCNF projects.
B.6.5
International Innovation Funding Mechanisms (Q6.5)
Questions:
Are you aware of any international innovation funding mechanisms that should be
considered in our evaluation?
B.6.5.1 Summary of Responses
All but one of the respondents were not aware of any other international innovation
funding mechanisms that should be considered in the evaluation, with one respondent
commenting that the LCNF is/was uniquely generous.
This one respondent suggested looking at the funding provided for smart grids and energy
systems in Singapore by the Energy Markets Authority – the equivalent of Ofgem there.
PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
October 2016
713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx
163