Addressing the challenge of improving resilience while cutting carbon

The water sector faces a paradox: cutting capital and operational carbon while at the same time maintaining performance standards in the face of a changing climate. In the first of a series of two articles, sustainability experts Alex McMahon and Ben Murray navigate the practical and regulatory challenges.

As highlighted in our recent article, carbon accounting is changing across the water industry, with a move to mandatory capital carbon reporting in 2022/23 following Ofwat guidance, bringing it into line with the reporting of operational emissions. Ofwat has also stated that it “expects company net zero plans to be clearly linked to national government targets”, including both embodied and operational carbon.

However, the climate challenge goes beyond just minimising our carbon emissions. It is also about maintaining performance standards in the face of a changing climate, moving towards both a net zero and resilient future. Even if we stopped releasing carbon now, we would still see a considerable change in climate as there is a 10- to 20-year delay between the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and their full effects being felt.

However, improving our resilience and response to climate change will require more infrastructure across the water sector, leading to further capital and operational carbon emissions, which will add further emissions to the atmosphere and add to the problem. To address this paradox, the water sector needs to reduce the amount of new infrastructure where possible (build nothing, build less), and where infrastructure is essential, deliver it in the lowest carbon way (build clever, build efficiently), embracing innovation in the process.

As the current regulatory environment can potentially (and inadvertently) prioritise cost and water quality[1] over carbon, water utility service providers and regulators will need to take a proactive and balanced approach.

Reducing carbon while improving resilience

To reduce capital and operational carbon effectively, it is important to assess the real need for infrastructure in the first place by considering the following questions as early as possible in the planning process:

• What is the scale of the potential carbon impact?
• Is the infrastructure essential, or could the scope be reduced?
• Is there any existing infrastructure that could be refurbished to suit the project requirements?
• Are there any innovative or lower-carbon alternatives?

By answering these key questions, utilities providers can balance project need against carbon impact to prioritise essential infrastructure.

The need for carbon in the regulatory space

To best enable effective decision-making however, carbon needs to be considered in the regulatory space, alongside cost and water quality.

While the inclusion of carbon in the regulatory environment would be a massive step forward in enabling the conditions for change, it isn’t clear who would take responsibility for these hard decisions around potentially sensitive trade-offs. It is a question that is waiting on the touch line and will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.

[1] Water quality includes both drinking water quality and environmental performance in terms of discharges to water courses.