The north of England could benefit from decarbonisation – but the government must avoid the mistakes of the past

Wind turbines next to Drax power station in Selby, North Yorkshire. Image: Getty.

The Northern Powerhouse, quite literally, powers the country. Between 2005 and 2014, the region produced an impressive 48 per cent of all renewable electricity in the UK; it’s home to the largest number of coal and gas power stations in England, too.

When it comes to energy policy, however, communities in the North are no strangers to challenge. And the challenge of decarbonisation is one which will need to be dealt with thoughtfully by the national government.

Climate change is the single biggest threat facing our planet. Decarbonisation is therefore a vital and urgent part of the action needed to mitigate the effects of global warming. However, it is clear that steps must be taken to protect the livelihoods of those people who work in carbon-based energy, because decarbonisation stands to have a profound impact on the landscape of the Northern energy sector and the people and communities it supports.

Last week, IPPR published a report which estimates that – as we move to a future in which we see a transition from carbon based to clean energy – 46,000 new green jobs could be created in the north of England by 2030. However, 28,000 carbon-based jobs could also be lost in this time.

It is imperative that the government recognises and prepares for the risk of job losses by ensuring a ‘just transition’ for workers in carbon-based industries. This involves securing the future and livelihoods of people and communities whose jobs are at risk, by supporting workers to access new green, high quality jobs.

Of course, this just transition is particularly important when we consider that the jobs losses in manufacturing and coal in the 1970s and ‘80s devastated whole communities. The impact has been particularly long-lasting because of a lack of policy support. In fact, in 2014, one in seven adults of working age in coalfield regions were out of work, well above the UK average.

As many northern communities continue to the feel the lasting effects of these jobs losses and closures, the transition to a low carbon economy cannot be allowed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

To avoid these mistakes, there are three key policy areas which the government must urgently address. In IPPR’s upcoming energy skills report in March 2019, we will be exploring each of these issues in more detail and provide in-depth policy recommendations for each; but the nature of the challenges must urgently be recognised and discussed here and now.

Firstly, the government’s Clean Growth Strategy and broader Industrial Strategy is not ambitious enough and needs to provide greater long-term certainty to renewable developers. Without this certainty, the opportunities for job creation will not be realised in the first place.

Secondly, the concept of a just transition must be embedded in the heart of decarbonisation policy. While the Scottish government has set up a Just Transition Commission to consider and mitigate the negative impacts of decarbonisation, the UK government does not mention it once in either its Industrial Strategy or Clean Growth Strategy. This must be urgently rectified.

Thirdly, the skills system is currently ill-equipped to provide retraining for workers in carbon-based generation who do not have skills that are readily transferable. In fact, according to IPPR’s Skills 2030 report from 2017, the adult skills budget is set to be cut in half between 2010 and 2020. This trajectory must be reversed and skills training must be better aligned with the demands of local economies.

The inadequate skills system is also problematic in the context of Brexit, where freedom of movement, and hence employment, of EU workers could be restricted. If renewable developers cannot acquire the skills they need in the UK, there is a risk that they will not invest here.

The North has the proud history, the capability, and the potential to continue to power the country far into the future. But this will only happen if the government takes the critical policy action needed to ensure that the transition to a low carbon economy is one which works for the people and communities who, quite literally, power the powerhouse.

Joshua Emden is a research fellow at IPPR. He tweets @joshemden.


Urgently needed: Timely, more detailed standardized data on US evictions

Graffiti asking for rent forgiveness is seen on a wall on La Brea Ave amid the Covid-19 pandemic in Los Angeles, California. (Valerie Macon/AFP via Getty Images)

Last week the Eviction Lab, a team of eviction and housing policy researchers at Princeton University, released a new dashboard that provides timely, city-level US eviction data for use in monitoring eviction spikes and other trends as Covid restrictions ease. 

In 2018, Eviction Lab released the first national database of evictions in the US. The nationwide data are granular, going down to the level of a few city blocks in some places, but lagged by several years, so their use is more geared toward understanding the scope of the problem across the US, rather than making timely decisions to help city residents now. 

Eviction Lab’s new Eviction Tracking System, however, provides weekly updates on evictions by city and compares them to baseline data from past years. The researchers hope that the timeliness of this new data will allow for quicker action in the event that the US begins to see a wave of evictions once Covid eviction moratoriums are phased out.

But, due to a lack of standardization in eviction filings across the US, the Eviction Tracking System is currently available for only 11 cities, leaving many more places facing a high risk of eviction spikes out of the loop.

Each city included in the Eviction Tracking System shows rolling weekly and monthly eviction filing counts. A percent change is calculated by comparing current eviction filings to baseline eviction filings for a quick look at whether a city might be experiencing an uptick.

Timely US eviction data for a handful of cities is now available from the Eviction Lab. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

The tracking system also provides a more detailed report on each city’s Covid eviction moratorium efforts and more granular geographic and demographic information on the city’s evictions.

Click to the above image to see a city-level eviction map, in this case for Pittsburgh. (Courtesy Eviction Lab)

As part of their Covid Resource, the Eviction Lab together with Columbia Law School professor Emily Benfer also compiled a scorecard for each US state that ranks Covid-related tenant protection measures. A total of 15 of the 50 US states plus Washington DC received a score of zero because those states provided little if any protections.

CityMetric talked with Peter Hepburn, an assistant professor at Rutgers who just finished a two-year postdoc at the Eviction Lab, and Jeff Reichman, principal at the data science research firm January Advisors, about the struggles involved in collecting and analysing eviction data across the US.

Perhaps the most notable hurdle both researchers addressed is that there’s no standardized reporting of evictions across jurisdictions. Most evictions are reported to county-level governments, however what “reporting” means differs among and even within each county. 

In Texas, evictions go through the Justice of the Peace Courts. In Virginia they’re processed by General District Courts. Judges in Milwaukee are sealing more eviction case documents that come through their courtroom. In Austin, Pittsburgh and Richmond, eviction addresses aren’t available online but ZIP codes are. In Denver you have to pay about $7 to access a single eviction filing. In Alabama*, it’s $10 per eviction filing. 

Once the filings are acquired, the next barrier is normalizing them. While some jurisdictions share reporting systems, many have different fields and formats. Some are digital, but many are images of text or handwritten documents that require optical character recognition programs and natural language processors in order to translate them into data. That, or the filings would have to be processed by hand. 

“There's not enough interns in the world to do that work,” says Hepburn.

Aggregating data from all of these sources and normalizing them requires knowledge of the nuances in each jurisdiction. “It would be nice if, for every region, we were looking for the exact same things,” says Reichman. “Instead, depending on the vendor that they use, and depending on how the data is made available, it's a puzzle for each one.”

In December of 2019, US Senators Michael Bennet of Colorado and Rob Portman of Ohio introduced a bill that would set up state and local grants aimed at reducing low-income evictions. Included in the bill is a measure to enhance data collection. Hepburn is hopeful that the bill could one day mean an easier job for those trying to analyse eviction data.

That said, Hepburn and Reichman caution against the public release of granular eviction data. 

“In a lot of cases, what this gets used for is for tenant screening services,” says Hepburn. “There are companies that go and collect these data and make them available to landlords to try to check and see if their potential tenants have been previously evicted, or even just filed against for eviction, without any sort of judgement.”

According to research by Eviction Lab principal Matthew Desmond and Tracey Shollenberger, who is now vice president of science at Harvard’s Center for Policing Equity, residents who have been evicted or even just filed against for eviction often have a much harder time finding equal-quality housing in the future. That coupled with evidence that evictions affect minority populations at disproportionate rates can lead to widening racial and economic gaps in neighborhoods.

While opening up raw data on evictions to the public would not be the best option, making timely, granular data available to researchers and government officials can improve the system’s ability to respond to potential eviction crises.

Data on current and historical evictions can help city officials spot trends in who is getting evicted and who is doing the evicting. It can help inform new housing policy and reform old housing policies that may put more vulnerable citizens at undue risk.

Hepburn says that the Eviction Lab is currently working, in part with the ACLU, on research that shows the extent to which Black renters are disproportionately affected by the eviction crisis.

More broadly, says Hepburn, better data can help provide some oversight for a system which is largely unregulated.

“It's the Wild West, right? There's no right to representation. Defendants have no right to counsel. They're on their own here,” says Hepburn. “I mean, this is people losing their homes, and they're being processed in bulk very quickly by the system that has very little oversight, and that we know very little about.”

A 2018 report by the Philadelphia Mayor’s Taskforce on Eviction Prevention and Response found that of Philadelphia’s 22,500 eviction cases in 2016, tenants had legal representation in only 9% of them.

Included in Hepburn’s eviction data wishlist is an additional ask, something that is rarely included in any of the filings that the Eviction Lab and January Advisors have been poring over for years. He wants to know the relationship between money owed and monthly rent.

“At the individual level, if you were found to owe $1,500, was that on an apartment that's $1,500 a month? Or was it an apartment that's $500 a month? Because that makes a big difference in the story you're telling about the nature of the crisis, right? If you're letting somebody get three months behind that's different than evicting them immediately once they fall behind,” Hepburn says.

Now that the Eviction Tracking System has been out for a week, Hepburn says one of the next steps is to start reaching out to state and local governments to see if they can garner interest in the project. While he’s not ready to name any names just yet, he says that they’re already involved in talks with some interested parties.

*Correction: This story initially misidentified a jurisdiction that charges $10 to access an eviction filing. It is the state of Alabama, not the city of Atlanta. Also, at the time of publication, Peter Hepburn was an assistant professor at Rutgers, not an associate professor.

Alexandra Kanik is a data reporter at CityMetric.