4.4.4 Scope
•
Complexity: for some of the secondary questions listed above, the answer would be relatively straightforward if the scope were to be clean energy (exclude activities related to fossil fuels). For other areas, it would add complexity. For example, distinguishing between the electricity network workers who are ‘clean energy’ and those that are not would in practice be difficult and heavily subject to interpretation.
•
Under-measurement of the energy efficiency sector: limiting the scope to clean energy would exclude energy efficiency activities that reduce the use of fossil fuels and exclude workers and market sectors which are likely to be a significant component of the energy efficiency sector (e.g. industrial process efficiency, gas boilers etc.).
There are a range of questions in relation to the scope or boundary of the measurement or survey: •
Should the survey be of the clean energy sector or the entire energy sector?
•
Which sub-sectors should be included? In particular: –
Should all electricity network activities be included or only activities related to clean energy (e.g. building transmission lines for renewable energy zones, integrating distributed energy resources)?
–
Should ‘gas efficiency’ be included or is the more efficient use of fossil fuels excluded?
–
Should transport be included – and if so, what types of transport (e.g. mode-shifting, rail)?
–
Should ‘blue hydrogen’ produced from gas be included or only ‘green hydrogen’?
Figure 5. Preference for survey and projections to be clean energy or energy sector as a whole (N=38)
Clean energy sector only 13%
Energy sector as a whole 87%
4.4.4.1 Energy sector or clean energy sector Underlying most of these questions is a threshold question: Should the scope be the ‘clean energy workforce’ or the ‘energy workforce’? The scope of the study was expected to be clean energy, but after the first workshop we realised we needed to consult on this question. While a minority of stakeholders preferred a survey of the clean energy workforce, the overwhelming response (all interviewees and 87 per cent of survey respondents, see Figure 5) were in favour of the scope being the energy sector. The main reasons cited were: •
•
•
46
Greater value for facilitating energy transition: the view of many stakeholders is that the energy sector is undertaking a historic transition and drawing lines between different types of workers within the energy sector would limit its value for understanding and facilitating this transition. One of the challenges is how to retrain and redeploy workers within traditional generation, networks and retailing activities. A holistic survey will be of more value. Consistency of data: the need for consistent data to compare within and across the energy sector was emphasised, with data provision by an independent source particularly useful. Much of the clean energy workforce can be measured within an energy sector workforce survey: the survey can still capture most of the key segments of the clean energy workforce through segmentation (e.g. renewable energy technologies).
E3 Opportunity Assessment: Developing the future energy workforce
FINDING 1.7 The overall scope of the survey and projections should be the energy sector, broken down into sub-sectors, and should not be limited to the clean energy sector The survey and projections should include the sectors and sub-sectors set out in Table 8 , noting all categories are further broken down into activities (manufacturing, installation, operations and maintenance, research and development) and sub-sectors (for example, residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural) where applicable.
