Decarbonisation in practice: energy transition and cost control in local government

Executive summary

Local authorities in England and Wales continue to pursue energy transition, but delivery is increasingly reframed in terms of purpose and constrained by internal limitations and external pressures. Gaps in capacity, capability, and organisational culture limit councils’ ability to deliver complex energy projects from within, while market volatility, planning and grid constraints, political uncertainty, and local government reorganisation create an unstable operating environment. Fragmented and short-term funding, above all, remains a fundamental barrier to success. 

These conditions are driving a shift toward approaches rooted in immediate viability rather than long-term strategy. While progress has been made towards targets, it is uneven and slowing as councils move beyond early gains into more complex and capital-intensive challenges. Solar has emerged as a central component of local energy strategies, largely because it aligns with current financial and political realities. However, it is not a silver bullet, and wider system constraints continue to limit its potential – as is largely the case across local energy transition efforts. As a result, a clear gap is emerging between ambition and delivery, with growing uncertainty about the achievability of net-zero targets.

Methodology

This publication draws on a series of structured roundtable discussions conducted in February 2026, involving 35 participants from 32 local authorities across England and Wales. These participants included officers and cabinet members (or equivalent) across leadership, environment, energy, and climate roles. Discussions were analysed using a thematic coding framework.

Research findings

Energy transition remains a priority, but approaches are evolving

Participants emphasised that energy transition remains a strategic priority. However, this research shows a clear shift in how it is communicated to the public, particularly in response to increased political sensitivity. The importance of keeping the public on board with these interventions was articulated by one roundtable participant:

A major project … really does have to be [communicated] incredibly well, otherwise you’re just going to alienate the people who you’re trying to benefit. (Cabinet Member, District Council)

This shift is largely terminological. For example, rather than leading with “net zero” or “climate emergency” terminology, some administrations shift their focus towards protecting nature, or being ‘greener’, to garner greater public support.

“We use the strapline on everything: a fairer, greener, healthier city … rather than ‘climate emergency’. Obviously, in order to house everyone.” (Cabinet Member, District Council)

However, many authorities are now increasingly focusing on tangible, immediate socioeconomic benefits such as lower energy bills, warmer homes, and improved health outcomes – centred around ‘co-benefits’ – which are seen as less likely to be criticised on political grounds.

“We talk all the time about warm homes, lower energy bills, healthy outcomes, restoring or protecting nature … that is less able to be sort of attacked for non-scientific and political reasons.” (Cabinet Member, District Council)

“For the broader community, it’s actually about the co-benefits or, as I would call them now, the wider benefits.” (Cabinet, London Borough)

We’ve learned to stop talking externally… about climate change and net zero… and really talk mainly about… how we will help you make your house warmer … and reduce your energy bill. (Cabinet Member, District Council)

Internally, ‘net zero’ remains a useful strategic framing. Externally, however, it is often contested, poorly understood, or insufficiently compelling for residents. Several participants described actively avoiding the term altogether in public-facing communications. 

“We have two sets of language …  So things like ‘climate emergency’, ‘net zero’, ‘energy security’ are useful inside. But I think we’ve found increasingly that that language is either contested, not agreed with, or just not interested in on the outside.” (Cabinet Member, Welsh Council)

There is a growing emphasis on co-benefits as a delivery mechanism – not just a communications tool – through which councils are attempting to build broader support for projects that might otherwise face resistance. Net zero is not dead, but for most councils, it is not a term that best communicates the efforts made towards energy transition in local government. 

Internal capacity and capability gaps constrain delivery

Across the roundtables, councils highlighted significant internal barriers relating to capacity, capability, and organisational structure/culture. This included a lack of in-house expertise – particularly in technical, commercial, and energy market knowledge – as a limiting factor in both planning and delivery.

“We just don’t have the capacity or the resources or the knowledge in-house to be able to do it.” (Officer, County Council)

The evidence also highlights a disconnect between political leadership and technical understanding. Some participants noted that decision-makers do not always fully grasp the complexity of energy systems or the requirements for delivery, which can slow progress or lead to risk-averse decision-making.

There is so much impenetrable energy speak that goes on … I really struggle as a professional. So God knows how the public perceives it. (Officer, City Council)

These challenges are compounded by organisational silos. Climate and energy work is often concentrated within specialist teams, with limited integration across wider council services. As a result, opportunities for coordinated, whole-system approaches are frequently missed.

“It’s sometimes hard to collaborate … I’m sure others aren’t as silly as us to work in a silo.” (Officer, City Council)

What emerges is a picture of councils attempting to deliver increasingly complex programmes without the internal infrastructure to support them. Put simply, delivery is constrained by the institutional readiness of local government itself. Without significant investment in skills, capacity, and organisational integration, the pace and scale of delivery will remain limited.

Delivery is shaped by external volatility and system constraints

Participants in this research, conducted just before the 2026 Iran war, described an operating environment increasingly characterised by uncertainty and constraint. Market volatility – particularly changes in subsidies, tariffs, and energy prices – was seen as a major risk to project viability.

Things change, the grants all change … then [projects] are no longer viable. (Cabinet Member, Welsh Unitary Authority)

Equally, political dynamics – both local and national – introduce further instability. Changes in leadership, shifting political priorities, and the prospect of elections are beginning to delay or halt decision-making. In some cases, political positions on net zero itself influence how projects are framed or whether they proceed at all. This creates an additional layer of risk, particularly for long-term investments that require consistent political backing.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen … it’s a big worry.” (Cabinet Member, Welsh Unitary Authority)

“There’s more potential for hung councils … it certainly slows [progress].” (Officer, County Council)

Furthermore, community attitudes were identified as a significant factor, especially for projects with visible or localised impacts such as solar farms or heat networks. While there is broad support for climate action in principle, specific developments face strong opposition, creating a tension between strategic objectives and local acceptability. 

“You get pushback when it comes down to that community level…” (Cabinet Member, City Council)

Adding to these pressures in a significant proportion of English councils is local government reorganisation (LGR), which has emerged as a major source of uncertainty and disruption. Participants described how ongoing or anticipated structural changes are delaying decisions, pausing projects, and creating confusion about future responsibilities. While some acknowledged that reorganisation could enable more strategic, large-scale delivery in the long term, the immediate impact is that of disruption and delay.

“We’ve kind of ground to a halt… we’re not allowed to commit to anything at this stage.” (Officer, City Council)

“We don’t even know what model we’re going ahead with yet…” (Officer, District Council)

The planning system was widely described as both a barrier and, potentially, an enabler. Constraints around land use, heritage protections, and competing priorities – such as food security or biodiversity conservation – can limit the scope for renewable energy projects. At the same time, some participants noted that reforms or shifts in planning policy could begin to ease these constraints. This suggests a system in transition – one that is currently seen to constrain delivery but may evolve to better support it. However, in the short term, planning complexity continues to slow projects and introduce uncertainty.

Planning is kind of one of my biggest frustrations… it should be the biggest tool… but… [it’s] seen as a blocker. (Cabinet Member, District Council)

“Our planning officers don’t want you to be able to see solar panels… that kind of wipes out retrofits.” (Cabinet Member, City Council)

“Planning can be… a very positive enabler for new development.” (Officer, City Council)

One of the most consistent and acute barriers raised was grid capacity. Councils reported that even when funding and political support exist, projects are often unable to proceed due to connection constraints, high costs, and long delays. This highlights a fundamental misalignment between local ambition and national infrastructure. Grid limitations are not just a technical issue – they directly shape what is considered feasible, often preventing otherwise viable projects from progressing.

“The connection fees… instantly killed off any kind of business case.” (Officer, Metropolitan Council)

“There just aren’t enough transformers… everything is incredibly slow.” (Officer, City Council)

Taken together, these factors point to a delivery environment characterised by uncertainty, complexity, and limited control. Councils are not only managing internal challenges, but also navigating a system that is not fully aligned with the pace or scale required for energy transition

Funding persists as the most widespread constraint

Funding was identified by many councils engaged in the research as the most significant barrier to delivery. Councils highlighted a substantial gap between the scale of investment required and the resources available.

“We estimate it needs about £50m to fully decarbonise… we just don’t have that money.” (Officer, Welsh Unitary Authority)

Beyond an overall lack of resources needed, participants stressed that funding is fragmented, short-term, and uncertain, making long-term planning difficult. This structure encourages short-term, opportunistic projects rather than systemic, strategic investment and interacts with other constraints, such as grid capacity, so even funded projects can be undeliverable. 

“The majority of the funding… had come from programmes… no clear idea of what happens now.” (Officer, City Council)

Overall, funding is shaping not just the scale of ambition but also the type of interventions that are prioritised – driving a focus on lower-cost, quicker-to-deliver measures.

Solar is central – but not a silver bullet

Solar is consistently identified as a core “big ticket” technology in local net zero strategies, often framed as one of the most significant available interventions. However, participants rightly emphasised that it cannot deliver decarbonisation alone.

“Solar plays a massive part for us across the board …” (Officer, Welsh Unitary Authority)

“… [It is] one of the tent poles… it’s never going to be a full solution.” (Officer, City Council)

Despite its strategic prominence, solar deployment is strongly shaped by a dominant business case logic. Decisions are frequently driven by financial viability, with solar photovoltaic (PV) panels often prioritised because of their clearer payback than other interventions. As a result, PV frequently “wins” in investment decisions where financial return is the primary criterion, reinforcing its centrality in delivery pipelines even when broader system benefits may be comparable across measures.

“… it’s got to have the payback.”  (Officer, Metropolitan Council)

We do talk to private providers … providing you get the return because it is taxpayers’ money at the end of the day. (Cabinet/Deputy Leader, County Council)

At the rooftop scale, solar is generally well-received and benefits from strong public and institutional support, particularly on civic buildings such as schools and community facilities. However, deployment is constrained by building conditions, ownership structures, and upfront capital requirements, which can limit otherwise viable opportunities.

“Solar is perceived quite positively generally when it’s rooftop.” (Officer, District Council)

“… there just isn’t the upfront financing.” (Officer, London Borough)

At the larger scale, solar farms are often supported in principle but become highly contested in practice. While there is recognition of their strategic value, local opposition around land use, visual impact, and perceived lack of community benefit can significantly delay or prevent delivery. These tensions are compounded by planning constraints and the absence of a coherent national land-use framework, which limits consistency in decision-making and adds uncertainty to project development.

“… there’s been a huge pushback… for people who live in the area…” (Cabinet Member, District Council)

Geography and site availability further shape what is feasible. Urban authorities in particular often have little option beyond rooftop solar due to land constraints, while rural deployment is shaped by competing land uses and local acceptability.

“… we don’t really have any option other than rooftop solar…” (Officer, London Borough)

Across both scales, infrastructure constraints – particularly grid capacity, connection costs, and battery availability – are repeatedly identified as critical limiting factors. Even where projects are financially viable and politically supported, these system-level barriers can halt delivery entirely.

“… the big issue is the grid connection…” (Cabinet Member, Welsh Unitary Authority)

Taken together, solar deployment is shaped not only by local ambition or economic rationale, but by a layered set of constraints spanning finance, infrastructure, planning, and social licence.

A sectoral recalibration of energy transition is underway

Councils are increasingly acknowledging that original net-zero timelines are unlikely to be met. While early strategies were often framed around clear, time-bound targets, delivery experience is now reshaping expectations of what is realistic within current system conditions.

“There is absolutely no way we are going to be able to decarbonise… by 2030.” (Cabinet Member, London Borough)

This recognition is not limited to isolated pessimism but reflects a broader recalibration across local government as councils move from early-stage, lower-cost interventions into more complex, capital-intensive phases of decarbonisation. In response, councils are reframing targets away from fixed deadlines towards more flexible, indicative or “best achievable” benchmarks. Rather than being abandoned, they are being adapted to reflect delivery constraints and uncertainties in funding, procurement, and infrastructure readiness.

We had a 2030 target, but it’s now as close to 2030 as we can get. (Officer, District Council)

As these more ambitious and capital-intensive projects are undertaken in councils’ energy transition, many are looking externally for the support needed to scale up these ambitions.

“With the context of our local area energy plan, we’re certainly talking about energy security to large commercials, industrials …. that’s a really key part that they help in solving.” (Officer, County Council)

This recalibration highlights the cumulative effect of the constraints identified across this research. Limited internal capacity, fragmented funding, procurement barriers, infrastructure bottlenecks, and local political and community pressures are collectively slowing progress and making whole-system transformation more difficult to deliver within original timeframes. As a result, councils are not stepping away from ambition, but rather reinterpreting it and adapting to a more constrained operating environment.

Conclusion: Getting energy transition back on track

There is a clear need to enhance capability, skills, and commercial expertise to ensure that local authorities can deliver at pace and scale. Progress will also depend on embedding climate considerations across all council services, and moving beyond siloed, project-based approaches toward whole-system integration. This should be supported by more effective and stable partnership working, including stronger cross-council collaboration and deeper regional coordination. Delivery models need to shift from incremental interventions toward more strategic, long-term planning and coordinated implementation. 

However, change must also be reflected in a clearer alignment between national and local delivery. Central government must address the core system constraints, including grid capacity and wider infrastructure delivery. Furthermore, greater certainty and stability in both policy and funding are essential, particularly in the context of continued volatility in energy markets – which is no doubt here to stay. These changes are urgently needed, but local government must act now, and delivering energy transition should not be halted in anticipation of structural change.