A New Philosophy for the Development of Regional Energy Planning Schemes

Abstract

A pragmatic approach for Local Area Energy Planning to capture Whole System interactions and meet the dual goals of informing regulated infrastructure requirements while informing businesses and local authorities on building their business plans, is presented. Unlike existing approaches, the method presented in this paper aids market change by considering policy requirements and prioritisation, commercial relationships, place-based resources, processes and interfaces, people (skills and vulnerabilities), and energy vector interdependencies, and focuses on spatially distributed economic segments (e.g., agriculture, food logistics, etc.). The methodology promotes co-location opportunities for symbiotic clusters to avoid growth in resource-constrained regions (e.g., grid capacity), and presents a temporal visualisation method that connects policy, regulation, infrastructure, technology, place, and people. To provide a case study to design, evolve, and test the methodology, the Greater Lincolnshire Region’s Economic Zone in the UK is selected; specifically, the logistics segment. Adopting this type of Whole System approach provides business planning clarity and stakeholder confidence to drive the adoption of new technologies. It also identifies where inward investment for strategic locations is needed and develops an evidence base for policy lobbying and influencing.

1. Introduction

There exists a substantial body of literature that investigates energy planning and control methods in its broadest sense, including those concerning ‘prosumer’ initiatives, scheduling of demand side loads, consideration of local power flows and planning, smart and islanded grid systems, distributed networks, energy hubs, and operational planning among many other facets—the reader is redirected for instance to [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] and citations therein to gain greater insight. Regional studies have been developed to support decarbonisation in a wide range of domains including heat decarbonisation [8], deployment of anaerobic digestors [9], or net zero housing [10]. Bale et al. identified the importance of strategic energy planning through stakeholder engagement for a case study in Leeds [11]; the results highlight the need for a strategic delivery body to overcome barriers in terms of finance, skills, and technology.

The Planning Act mandated local authorities to develop Local Plans to address housing, social, economic, and environmental needs of their area and enable sustainable development [12], with local planning being a central activity to ensure compliant and acceptable building and land use is maintained in line with national regulations and local requirements [13]. This activity has typically excluded consideration of energy provision or the ability of local infrastructure to support ongoing developments in specific areas, and this is now recognised as a missing link in national and regional plans for infrastructure deployment. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) now requires regional bodies to fill this gap in knowledge through inputs such as Local Area Energy Plans compiled by Local Authorities (LAs) [14].

However, there remains a dearth of prior art that specifically addresses integrated regional area energy plans that accommodate the full breadth of stakeholder requirements (local government, domestic, commercial, industrial, etc.) along with local environmental assets (e.g., water, gas, electric, heating, infrastructure, geography, people provision) for devising transitional regional decarbonisation pathways. This is reflected in the comprehensive review of global Local Area Energy Planning (LAEP) methodologies in [15], which, at the time of writing, identifies only one UK-based LAEP method (developed by the Energy Systems Catapult (ESC)) that addresses such aspects, but is still limited to utility development in an urban environment.

Depending on regional priorities, existing methods incorporate various approaches with a common goal of meeting their decarbonisation targets. For instance, the Government of Scotland has developed the Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategy (LHEES) with a focus on heat decarbonisation and energy efficiency improvement for buildings [16]. However, such priority foci do not capture other important Whole System interactions, and hence optimal cost and value cannot be guaranteed. For instance, the ESC demonstrated that the cost of decarbonising heat was only around 15% more than decarbonising electricity alone when considered for pilot studies in Newcastle, Bury, and Bridgend, if a holistic approach is adopted [17]. Other efforts include that of Arup and Afallen [18], and Brighton and Hove Energy Services Co-operative (BHESCo) [19]. Each of the various LAEP methods are characterised by having a limited, bounded scope. For instance, the BHESCo’s includes aspects related to agricultural buildings, whilst agriculture is not addressed at all in the ESC counterpart but focuses instead on aspects such as heat networks. Regardless of the method, each LAEP methodology aims to decarbonise its respective LA region by primarily identifying infrastructure requirements.

Here, the authors evaluate the scope and relative merits of existing LAEP methods and identify common deficiencies that impede the attainment of their decarbonisation goals. Moreover, to mitigate the impact of identified deficiencies, the authors explore the added value of including Whole System interactions within future LAEPs. Central to the proposed LAEP strategy are the interactions between policy/regulation, infrastructure, technology, place, and people to support informed decision-making. Finally, the authors provide a practical case study for decarbonising heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) for the UK Food Valley (UKFV). The methodology identifies practical ways to integrate demand reduction ambitions from the Lincolnshire Freight Strategy [20] into the business plans for HGV fleet operators and provides a decision support tool to identify timelines of developing infrastructure and costs (e.g., electric charging [21] or hydrogen pipelines [22]) for the progressive decarbonisation of their fleet. It should be noted that whilst this example focusses on HGVs in the UKFV, the underlying principles and developed tools are more widely applicable to other market segments.

1.1. Energy Planning Framework in the UK

There is already a very complex overlay of national, regional, and local infrastructure. For instance, the electricity infrastructure in England and Wales is owned by National Grid, whilst Scotland has Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Electricity [23]. Moreover, there are then 14 Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) [24] that cover Great Britain. OFGEM has developed a new regional responsibility group viz. the Regional Energy Strategic Planners [25], who will now provide an additional overlay, which has culminated in an announcement (February 2025) of its expected first publication by 2027 [26]. Further, gas, water, digital communications, etc., will have different regional and local overlays with non-aligning boundaries. LAs also have a different footprint that may fully or partially include one or more of the utility footprints, thereby collectively creating a very challenging wicked (very complex) environment. Governance of these different entities adds yet another layer of complexity to providing coherent evidence generation for infrastructure development and deployment. The end user, the consumer or business or LA, is just one of many stakeholders to be considered either directly (if big enough to be of interest) or indirectly (if small but numerous) to be represented by their LA or proxy. Although not an exhaustive list, the organisations or stakeholders that influence and are influenced by regulated infrastructure deployment are depicted in Figure 1.

Institutions, utilities, and LAs are mainly focused on the needs of planning the regulated infrastructure, while stakeholders and LAs are predominantly interested in how to make business plans and inward investment offers based on regulated infrastructure deployment. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate that the current structures and frameworks that lead to the deployment of regulated infrastructure follow an iterative chronological process of: (i) Policy development, (ii) Interpretation of policy into regulation, (iii) Developing commercial or business plans, (iv) Implementing technical solutions, and then (v) Deployment of solutions, as follows:

(i)

Policy development: Policies are developed with ambitions to meet organisational goals and market requirements under a set of external conditions affecting the organisation.

(ii)

Interpretation of policy into regulation: A well-defined policy is then incorporated into regulation, which is a framework intended to deliver the outlined requirements for organisations and businesses to deliver the desired outcomes defined by the policy intent.

(iii)

Developing commercial or business plans: Business models for organisations are developed based on the predetermined policy, regulations, infrastructure availability, and other external conditions. Under these conditions, business models assess technical solutions to match the needs of targeted market segments that may belong to one or many types of the organisations depicted in Figure 1, depending on the business goals.

(iv)

Implementing technical solutions: Technical solutions are chosen under the umbrella of defined policy and regulations and foresight of infrastructure availability to ensure a commercial fit for meeting anticipated market needs. Solutions with regulatory uncertainty, foreseeable infrastructure deficits, and risks of losing market competitiveness are not often considered in the short and medium terms.

(v)

Deployment of solutions: Deployment of the technical solutions to meet market needs could face a range of problems arising from unclear policy, delay in regulatory framework development, overestimation or underestimation of infrastructure deployment and market needs, etc. The identified market barriers might then lead to the development of organisational policies, and hence, repeating the process over the planning horizons of the participating organisations.

1.2. Deficiencies in the Existing Energy Planning Framework

The outcome of the above-mentioned process generates an evidence base for developing policy and regulations for many organisations, including utility businesses (responsible for infrastructure deployment). Once the evidence is substantiated, it reflects into policies and then regulation, which are then incorporated into the business plans of utility businesses to deliver value consumers and shareholders through technical solutions. Challenges faced by these businesses while deploying the technical solutions help in identifying market barriers. These outcomes, in combination with other evidence generated during the process described in Figure 2 leads to policy development, and hence repeating the process leads to infrastructure deployment. Incorporation of updates within the commercial model development of organisations, and then the implementation of viable solutions occurs during time spans fixed by the organisation or regulatory bodies. This is influenced by planning timescales of the affecting organisations that contribute to policy development. Business investments that are planned in isolation and locked-in over fixed time periods delay the arrival of policies and hinder the deployment of technology, as summarised in Figure 4.

The cumulative effects of existing frameworks have caused consumers to face significant delays in securing electric connections with transmission and distribution networks [27]. For example, delay in securing electrical connections to support charging infrastructure is one of the key factors impeding the wider uptake of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Another market segment is electric heating, which also demonstrates some of the problems arising from current frameworks: National ambitions for achieving Net Zero by 2050 [28] has led to policy announcements in various domains, including incentives on the capital cost for heat pumps in 2022 [29]. DNOs operating under the RIIO-ED2 regulations have business plans developed using insights from heat pump policy announcements made before 2023 and have deployment targets that are locked in until 2028 [30]. However, decisions on the role of hydrogen for heating is not expected to be made until 2026, potentially impacting on the uptake of heat pumps, and leading to possible inappropriate use of technology and investments, leading to further delays in developing the infrastructure. Independently anticipating policies for hydrogen in heating for business model development, for multiple DNOs, will likely result in inconsistencies. Thus, it is vital to consider and establish commercial relationships between stakeholders and organisations associated with energy and related utilities.

To deploy infrastructure in a timely manner, there is a need to prioritise policy requirements for multiple organisations/stakeholders and consider multiple energy/related vector interdependencies. This requires the development of commercial relationships to maintain coherency in planning and developing innovative solutions (e.g., circular economies). Incorporating the evidence of practically implementable technical solutions based on place-based resources is crucial to estimating potential barriers and opportunities for market development. The processes and interfaces for generating evidence and deploying infrastructure are subject to the skills and knowledge of people, and its adoption depends on the choices and vulnerabilities of the people involved. Thus, the processes must be designed and implemented with careful consideration to people’s perspectives and needs. This paper will focus on developing a LAEP methodology to account for the factors that are identified and are crucial to the timely deployment of regulated infrastructure as well as creating business plans for stakeholders (businesses and local authorities).

The following sections identify essential components of a LAEP framework for supporting regulated infrastructure deployment and business planning developments for local authorities and businesses. The progress and deficiencies in the UK’s regional planning activities are highlighted. The paper then goes on to present a new methodology for developing a LAEP framework which, unlike traditional approaches, is based on the vertical and horizontal integration (segment-based) of systems (and subsystems) and wider sustainable development such as land use, adaptation to climate change, digital technology, energy infrastructure, and natural resource control, for instance. The outcomes of this paper will include how a Local Area Energy Plan can inform, influence, and help regulated infrastructure planning, while providing sufficient insight, sign posting, and knowledge sharing such that local businesses and inward investors can make alternative arrangements, if required, to their energy needs and decarbonisation ambitions in the short term. Another key aspect of this new methodology is the support it can provide to transition planning for these entities to be able to assess how best to run their businesses and grow while waiting for national infrastructure to be planned and deployed. This has the advantage of primarily driving economic business and regional growth whilst implicitly aligning with national decarbonisation targets.

1.3. Essential Components of Local Area Energy Planning Framework to Support Regulated Infrastructure Deployment

The abovementioned complex set of factors affecting infrastructure deployment and business planning can be reflected in Local Area Energy Plans that follow key steps: (i) Capturing Whole System interactions, (ii) addressing all energy and related vectors, (iii) understanding possible innovative circular economic processes, (iv) gaining clarity as to how market segmentation enhances or disrupts Whole System interactions, (v) providing decision support for the Whole System, and (vi) demonstrating deficiencies and outcomes using Spatio-temporal visualisation. Careful consideration of each of these components is key to informing and influencing market change to deliver national, regional, and local goals in a timely, affordable, and pragmatic manner. The need to consider these components is highlighted with some examples of the actions required (note: this is not an exhaustive set of parameters).

(i) 

Capturing Whole System interactions: Developing a Local Area Energy Plan to support infrastructure deployment requires addressing the interdependencies between various Whole System tiers (subsystems); here segregated into (i) Policy and Regulations, (ii) Infrastructure, (iii) Technology, (iv) Place, and (v) People. By systematically assessing these tiers in a hierarchical manner, the proposed methodology results in a cohesive strategic approach leading to effective business planning and timely infrastructure deployment. Nevertheless, complexity arises due to the high interdependency of these tiers and requires iterative feedback to be designed into the methodology, as exemplified below:

Policy and Regulations: They are naturally influenced by alignment with other policies: for instance, to accrue the benefits of smart meter deployment, appropriate policies are required to give consumers some control over how their data are shared, processed, and managed [31].

• Infrastructure: Deficiencies lead to the identification of required policy interventions to accelerate and support infrastructure development projects (e.g., Contracts for Difference [32] and Rapid Decarbonisation Fund).
• Technology: Lower market availability and developmental gaps result in the design of appropriate regulations or policy support schemes (e.g., zero emission vehicle mandate; innovation funds).
• Place: Regional requirements for progressing towards national goals, such as improved healthcare or regional growth, are responsible for place-based funding allocation (e.g., NHS [33], devolved funds [34]).
• People: Evidence of the slow adoption of, or resistance to, technologies (e.g., heat pumps, hydrogen for domestic heating) is one of the inputs for allocating budget or making critical policy decisions.

Infrastructure: Other infrastructure businesses often influence these, for instance, the return on investment in energy generation projects depends on the ability of regional transmission lines to provide connections on time.

• Policies and regulations: OFGEM price controls for transmission network operators (TNOs), DNOs, and national energy system operator (NESO) regulate businesses to enable fund allocations to infrastructure development and maintenance (including digital technologies).
• Technology: New technology may increase or decrease the load on networks and require development/installation of new networks, built environments, and digital infrastructure.
• Place: Certainty in regional preferences for particular technologies (e.g., based on the availability of natural resources and environment) and the magnitude of the associated infrastructure requirements support business cases for upgrading or developing regional infrastructure.
• People: Multidisciplinary skills and cross/up-skilling are required to support future infrastructure demands, adapt to changing business practises, and innovation to support prompt infrastructure delivery.

Technology: The deployment of a technology depends on supporting technologies; for instance, the effective operation of alternate fuel vehicles requires technology deployment to dispense the fuels [35].

• Policies and regulations: Certainty of policy to phase out technologies drives investments made by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) (e.g., non-zero emission vehicles [36]).
• Infrastructure: Timely deployment of the supporting infrastructure is required for technology deployment (e.g., electric and hydrogen trucks [37]). Delays such as a 15-year lead time for solar photovoltaics (PVs) projects to secure grid connections can hinder technology deployment [38].
• Place: Regional resources play a significant role in the capability of a technology to perform (e.g., incident solar radiation at a location).
• People: Issues such as lack of social acceptance (e.g., wind [39]), safety concerns (e.g., domestic village trials [40,41]), and skilled worker shortages [42] may impact the deployment of technology.

Place: Inward investment to facilitate economic growth and decarbonise the region is often influenced by investments that compete for the same place-based resources (e.g., land, water, feedstock, geographical formations [pumped hydro], aquifers, etc.).

• Policies and Regulations: Navigating across multiple governance (e.g., Regional Energy Strategic Planning [14]) and utility boundaries (e.g., DNOs) while adhering to the National Planning Policy Framework [43] influences the decisions made by LAs.
• Infrastructure: Locations where gas networks would be retained, repurposed, or dismantled [44] and locations with sufficient provision of electric capacity affects regional growth.
• Technology: Timely availability of technology and its capability to contribute to meeting place-based objectives, is one of the key factors influencing regional priorities (e.g., hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (H₂-FCEVs) versus BEVs infrastructure and supply chains).
• People: Participation in consultations for planning consents and challenges from regional economic/skill disparity play important roles in making decisions on place-based resource allocation and innovations.

People: Decision-makers are influenced by common perspectives of communities and groups (e.g., Citizen’s advice).

• Policies: Incentives and regulations (e.g., boiler upgrade scheme [29], phasing out of gas boilers) drive decisions taken by people.
• Infrastructure: Availability, reliability, and resilience of infrastructure to support people’s goals is vital to selecting appropriate solutions.
• Technology: Operational challenges, cost of upgrading, and re-skilling to ensure commercial competitiveness, and anticipated cost benefits will influence business or domestic budget allocations.
• Place: Availability of resources at a place (e.g., natural resources) is a vital attribute for decision-making.

In order to understand the interactions within and at their interfaces, it is important to have a structured methodology. ‘People’ can be considered as a universal set as they touch all aspects of the other categories. These aspects can cover everything from being an end consumer, to the skills needed for the industry and local authorities, to policy makers and senior management (see Figure 5), while policy and regulation are developed by some people to touch all aspects of the other categories and some aspects of people. Technology, infrastructure, and place closely interact, and solutions involving these categories are developed by people to adhere to policy and regulation. Citizens and consumers are often the recipients of policy/regulation, technology, and infrastructure by impacting their place: this may or may not be mutually acceptable.

(ii) 

Addressing all energy and related vectors: Around 40% of the electricity requirements in the UK were met by natural gas in 2022 [45]. While electrification will increase demand on networks, adopting alternative fuels will also require a transformation of existing supply chains. Production and transport of alternative fuels (biofuels and efuels, including hydrogen) or heat (for heat networks) will increase the load on existing networks and/or require new networks. Furthermore, assessing viable feedstock for energy conversion, digital systems, water resources, etc., is crucial to developing a holistic strategy.

(iii) 

Innovative circular economic processes: Identifying and promoting innovative circular economic processes to promote commercial competitiveness whilst ensuring resource efficiency is crucial for the optimal use of available resources in a place. Careful consideration is required for circular economic processes for electricity (e.g., V2G), heat (e.g., data centres), resources converted to energy (e.g., biomethane), and resources not converted to energy but needed as part of the solution (e.g., SF6 regeneration [46]), etc.

(iv) 

Market segmentation: Appraising technical solutions depends on transitional (e.g., installation) and capital (e.g., boiler) costs, incentives, regulatory restrictions, energy infrastructure, and built environment at the desired location, performance, and market availability of technology, and the skills available. The relative importance of these factors depends on whether a candidate technology is used for residential, industrial, commercial, or agricultural purposes. This requires streamlined decisions related to policy, infrastructure, place, and technology to drive decarbonised heating, cooling, power, transport, and a necessary digital transformation for different market segments whilst realising the benefits of interfacing with other segments.

(v) 

Decision support for the Whole System: Monitoring the energy requirements and external conditions helps energy consumers [47], utility companies, and authorities identify where interventions are needed. Energy planning tools [48,49] help these organisations and stakeholders to identify the required interventions. A realistic monitoring tool combined with informative signposting and knowledge sharing processes can facilitate the development and propagation of coherent assumptions. With timely and synergistic decisions made across the Whole Systems in the right direction, accelerated infrastructure deployment can be achieved while ensuring an affordable and viable outcome for people and place.

(vi) 

Spatio-temporal visualisation: It is crucial to visualise the transition of Whole System tiers in a spatio-temporal manner to ensure that actions are taken at the right place and time (prioritising). Monitoring progress on a spatial plane helps reduce issues caused by regional inequalities, while the temporal view justifies the timescales for processes, as indicated in Figure 2.

Regional energy planning methodologies for the UK based on the above-mentioned ideology are reviewed in the following section, and the gaps in knowledge are identified.

1.4. Assessment of Current Regional Energy Planning Methodologies and Gaps in Knowledge

Regional energy planning methodologies are intended to capture Whole System interactions and deliver local actions to support decarbonisation and (for instance) are underpinned by available funding to LAs. A key aspect is the availability of skills within the LA or place-based entities to be able to understand the complex methodologies and how appropriate they are to their particular situation. There is a tendency to rely on the utility or consultants for these skills, but even these organisations lack sufficient capacity and experience in this new domain. Some existing methodologies that are either being implemented or are planned across the UK are now summarised. As described in the introduction section, the LHEES was developed for heat decarbonisation and energy efficiency in buildings in Scotland [16]. ESC highlighted the importance of a planned approach for decarbonising heat and electricity in buildings and pioneered LAEPs through its earlier pilot projects for Bridgend, Bury, and Newcastle [50]. This methodology has been widely accepted in Wales, and parts of England. Arup and Afallen [18] and BHESCo [19] have also developed LAEPs for parts of Wales and England, respectively. A summary of the relative merits of these methodologies based on the six criteria in Section 1.1, is given below and indicated in Figure 6.

(i) 

Whole System interactions 

The existing methods developed for regional planning identify issues related to place-based infrastructure constraints, consider the impacts of existing policies, and identify needed infrastructure and policies for technology adoption. Some methods address issues related to skills and social acceptability. However, based on publicly available evidence, it is considered here that the Whole System interactions are not captured effectively. For example, the commercial availability/viability or infrastructure development for adopting a technology depends on the decisions made by the stakeholders from the other Whole System tiers during the timescale of estimated adoption. As an example, the deployment of a renewable energy generation technology, e.g., wind, would require contributions from (i) People: social acceptance and skillset to install the technology, (ii) Place: planning permissions and timely land allocation, (iii) Technology: delivery of wind turbines and other supporting equipment, (iv) Infrastructure: timely connections to the transmission network to ensure commercial viability, and (v) Policy/Regulations: existing and new policies and frameworks (e.g., Contracts for Difference [32], Implementation of Connections Action Plan into the RIIO-3 regulation [27]). Although this is not an exhaustive list, considering these aspects together is vital to ensure the practical implementation of solutions.

(ii) 

Addressing all energy and associated vectors 

While BHESCo’s methodology considered electricity and gas/biomethane, others considered electricity, heat, gas, and hydrogen. As transitional biofuels and efuels could reduce emissions from hard-to-abate sectors in the short term [51], assessing viable waste/biomass and associated environmental issues is vital. With the possibility of existing fuel stations/depots serving as assets for future low-carbon fuel dispensing, it is crucial to include the role of oil (petrol/diesel) within a LAEP framework. Often off-grid gas (LPG) is ignored or electrification assumed; these are all part of the complex energy infrastructure in a place. Finally, the ESC’s methodology highlights digital transformation [50] and indicates data standardisation needs. However, there remains a lack of knowledge on how developments in vital digital technologies and infrastructure are tracked or the timescales for delivery to understand how to synchronise the energy and digital infrastructure rollout.

(iii) 

Innovative circular economic processes 

While some methods consider waste heat utilisation and demand side management, one methodology highlights the importance of peer-to-peer electricity trading. However, no technique considers sharing resources that can be used to produce energy or promote economic growth. It is vital to consider a holistic system view for best use of regional resources.

(iv) 

Market segmentation 

Existing methodologies focus on decarbonisation of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and transport. However, only one study considers agricultural buildings, but none considers agricultural transport. Furthermore, these studies do not consider cooling in the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors. To provide a cohesive approach for planning and policy actions and to understand both needed and also unintended consequences, all economic market segments must be considered.

(v) 

Decision support for the Whole System 

Previously developed approaches used a combination of data sources, including energy performance certificates of buildings, CIBSE standards, Non-Domestic National Energy Efficiency Data [52], etc., to estimate the energy requirements and develop technology adoption profiles. However, adopting a technology depends on a range of factors, such as influencing policy, infrastructure, commercial availability of technology, place-based constraints, and the perspectives of users/potential owners who must fund it. Although existing methods consider some of these aspects, as indicated in section (i), they do not consider Whole Systems interactions for each market segment. To ensure that a business or individual can make the right choice of technology to meet their needs and circumstances, it is essential to provide clarity on the viability of the proposed solution from end to end. For example, providing a BEV when there is no national compatible charging infrastructure would be no good for a national food logistics delivery business. The different audiences that need to be informed to ensure timely and coherent deployment can range from national governments to individual users. It is therefore of paramount importance that the methodology and decision support tools meet these needs. Most methodologies are focused on a subset of these audiences and only inform that segment.

(vi) 

Spatio-temporal visualisation 

Most of the existing methodologies support a spatio-temporal visualisation of supply and energy demands based on estimated decarbonisation pathways (e.g., Sankey diagrams or maps). However, these methods do not use similar visual tools for the supporting infrastructure development and implementation. Identifying spatio-temporal bottlenecks to decarbonisation solutions to reduce uncertainty and thereby facilitate policy lobbying, infrastructure planning, and early adoption (e.g., EVs or hydrogen-based alternatives) can provide a means of exposing the challenges in a readily digestible visual manner for those that do not have the time to understand the detail.

The new approach promoted in this paper is based on capturing the interdependencies between policy/regulations, infrastructure, technology, place, and people for multiple energy vectors to deliver synergistic solutions. The targeting of individual market segments in this paper therefore identifies challenges (across policy, infrastructure, technology, place, and people) and helps identify drivers to inform businesses and influence the needed market changes and infrastructure deployment to occur. In order to do this and propose viable options, a thorough and in-depth understanding of the associated Whole System challenges and opportunities is required. The scope of the study conducted to develop a LAEP Approach based on the Whole Systems ideology is discussed below.

2. Scope of Study for Developing a “Whole Systems”: LAEP Approach

In the previous sections, a clear indication of the holistic challenge has been outlined to understand the highly complex problem to be solved. The complexity and difficulty in obtaining the needed inputs and understanding is often reduced to a problem that can be solved. This is the reductionism approach that has been used in past decades. By reducing the problem to one that can be solved, the process of changing the problem and making assumptions often changes not only the problem but also the viable solutions that are arrived at. The authors have attempted to create an agile methodology that is much more about understanding the problem domain and profiling and collecting sufficient data about the solution domain. People and place are the key to this conundrum—not technology. Once the problem is clearly understood, optionality for possible technical solutions can be offered. Policy barriers can be identified and commercial viability can be assessed. Societal impact and acceptance can be gauged and alternatives considered. The following section considers the high-level approach adopted in the development of this methodology, which was created in a “live” real-life local challenge.

Creating a profile of the challenge, the potential stakeholders, place-based resources and possible technologies in a region requires identification of market segments and demands for each segment. Implementing solutions in a spatial plan and deploying the supporting infrastructure relies on local priorities and available regional resources. Deployment of a technology is subject to its commercial availability/viability, and the timely deployment of the supporting infrastructure, which depends on the certainty and magnitude of demand. Mitigating deficiencies in developing a solution requires policy support, which depends on the strength of the evidence base. Driving market change to adopt a particular solution across the tiers of Whole Systems requires outlining the progress made by, and the challenges faced by, each tier.

To reduce the underlying uncertainty from different perspectives of distinct stakeholders of the whole energy systems, a LAEP study was commissioned by the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership (GLLEP) and The University of Lincoln (UoL). The UKFV, which was formed by the GLLEP, supports the growth of the agri-food sector within Greater Lincolnshire Region (GLR) and champions businesses within that sector, both nationally and internationally. The GLR is selected for this case study as it has a combination of urban and rural regions, is rich in agriculture (producing 25% of the country’s vegetables), industry (processing 70% of the UK’s seafood and having £1.9bn worth of manufacturing sector), and tourism (attracting 31 million tourists annually) [53]. The diversity in the GLR compared to many other urban locations (e.g., Manchester, Newport) with existing LAEPs, provides an excellent opportunity for developing a cohesive methodology for business planning and infrastructure development to ensure market competitiveness, whilst exploring the benefits afforded by Whole System interactions. The proposed LAEP methodology development process captures the importance of the interactions between policy/regulation, infrastructure, technology, place, and people to support informed decision-making.

3. “Whole Systems” Approach—Identifying the Decarbonisation Challenge

As identified in Section 1, the “Whole Systems” Approach is a pragmatic methodology that considers the interactions of policy/regulation, infrastructure, technology, place, and people to support the implementation of solutions. Here, it consists of an iterative process that is systematically ordered as follows: (i) identify business segments and key challenges, (ii) prepare and distribute surveys, (iii) analyse outcomes, (iv) estimate business energy consumption and resource availability, (v) identify the decarbonisation challenge, (vi) outline infrastructure and policy needs for decarbonisation, (vii) generate timelines of policy, infrastructure, technology, place, and people for segment-specific uses, and (viii) develop decision trees to aid stakeholder uptake of low-carbon systems.

3.1. Step 0: Iterative Processes

Iterative processes were involved during all stages of this study to validate assumptions and address crucial interdependencies among the whole energy systems, and consist of stakeholder engagement, online data collection, and feedback from the review panels (in this case commissioned by the GLLEP).

3.1.1. Online Research

Online research was conducted to bridge the gaps of existing methodologies (see Section 1.3) and supplement knowledge gained throughout the LAEP development processes. This involved gaining insights from energy consumer’s perspectives, regional priorities, technology and infrastructure market development and deficiencies, and the policy landscape. To obtain relevant data, the authors have referred to documents published by the UK Government, network regulators, infrastructure developers, LAs, OEMs, and consultancies (e.g., Element Energy).

3.1.2. Stakeholder Engagement

Relevant stakeholders ranging from business owners of the UKFV to experts involved in energy demand estimation for the region to members of the GLLEP were engaged to gain an understanding of the barriers and opportunities in decarbonising businesses in the regional context and identify pertinent other stakeholders/supply chains. Initial contact with stakeholders involved highlighting the importance of energy planning and the benefits this study could provide to them. Questions were framed to acquire data and insights on a range of aspects, including the predominant energy vectors, current energy and resource consumption, waste generation, potential interest in circular economies, existing business practises, and decarbonisation challenges.

3.1.3. Review Panel Feedback

Progress was reviewed by panels commissioned by the GLLEP. Members of the review panel possessed expert knowledge across multiple regional domains, including business, infrastructure, and policy challenges, local resource allocation process, etc.

3.2. Step 1: Identify Business Segments and Key Challenges

Based on insights gained from initial stakeholder interactions, key segments were identified as agriculture and food logistics, with the latter responsible for three times more emissions than the former. Displacing white diesel was identified as the major challenge. However, based on the Review Panel Feedback, the methodology was extended to identify segments associated with food processing and the cold chain. Subsequently, the study classified the UKFV into agri-food and livestock farming, proposed aquaculture, food (agri-food, livestock, seafood) processing, dedicated cold stores, and food logistics segments based on their activities.

3.3. Step 2: Prepare and Distribute Surveys

Following Review Panel Feedback from Step 1, an “Energy Survey for Food Processing”, “Fish Energy Survey”, “Farm Energy Survey”, and “Logistics Survey” were designed to identify decarbonisation challenges associated with the key business segments. Survey questions were used to probe existing usage and wastage of energy and related vectors, and current on-site energy generation and storage facilities. These surveys were distributed to the businesses within the UKFV with the help of the GLLEP. Anonymised outcomes of the survey were received by the GLLEP, which were then provided to the authors.

3.4. Step 3: Analyse Outcomes

The “Farm Energy Survey”, “Fish Energy Survey”, “Energy Survey Food Processing”, and “Logistics Survey” had 31 responses. However, 29 participants merely accepted the terms and conditions of the UoL-mandated participant consent form. One of the participants of the “Fish Energy Survey” indicated that they belong to the fish processing business; while there was only one relevant response from the “Farm Energy Survey”, indicating the use of solar PV-based power generation (exporting excess power to the grid) and the use of LPG for drying. Limited participation is not unusual in such situations and highlights the need for formal procedures and continuous processes to fill gaps and suitable incentivisation schemes to facilitate stakeholder response. Due to limited feedback from the surveys, the authors in this instance resorted to online data collection and identification of key stakeholders to answer the survey questions. The approach adopted in step 0 to highlight the importance of energy planning and viable benefits to the stakeholders can be tailored to the businesses categorised for the surveys. Advertising these benefits with the goals of the LAEP delivery body prior to delivering these surveys can help in improving stakeholder participation in the initial stages of the LAEP. Once the planning approach has progressed, advertising the successes gained through the LAEP can attract additional participation.

Valuable insights were derived through interactions with stakeholders from the agri-food farming, cold store, and seafood processing segments. Moreover, based on Review Panel Feedback, the directions for the estimation of waste that can be potentially available for conversion to energy or non-energy products were investigated. All the outcomes were analysed, and next steps were taken to estimate segment-specific decarbonisation requirements and challenges.

3.5. Step 4: Estimate Segment-Wise Usage and Wastage of Energy and Related Vectors

The following subsections include the spatial map generation for the identified business segments and modelling of the usage and wastage of energy and related vectors with an ambition to identify opportunities for circular economies.

3.5.1. Spatial Map Generation for Business Segments

Spatial data for agri-food farming in an uncontrolled environment was acquired from the Crop Map of England [54], while locations of seafood processing, livestock processing, and dedicated cold stores were identified from the dataset published by the Food Standards Agency [55] and processed as indicated in Figure A1 in Appendix A. The spatial distribution dataset for other businesses was produced using the methodology in Figure A2 in Appendix A, which uses the UK Government’s Company House Service [56] for acquiring addresses based on Standard Industrial Codes listed in Appendix A, and ArcGIS Pro version 3.1.0 for geocoding the addresses [57]. Note that the locations identified from the latter data source depend on addresses provided by the businesses when registering and the accuracy of the geocoding tool. Spatial data for new establishments for agri-food farming under controlled environments, proposed aquaculture sites, and proposed cold store expansions are identified through online search.

3.5.2. Modelling Segment-Wise Usage of Energy and Related Vectors

Agri-food and livestock farming: The energy use of agri-food (uncontrolled environment) and livestock farming is estimated using the specific fuel consumption from the Farm Energy Survey for England [58], agricultural land use from the Crop Map of England [54], and DEFRA’s livestock land use dataset [59]. The energy required by a candidate vertical farm is estimated directly from business documentation [60], while that of glasshouses is estimated based on results from a modelling tool [61], and land use patterns from DEFRA’s dataset and individual websites of glasshouse operators [62,63,64]. There remains limited public information regarding the locations of historic glasshouses. Agricultural farms typically have irrigation systems that are powered by red diesel and electricity, while off-road transport (tractors) primarily relies on red diesel and on-road transport on white diesel. Livestock farms require electricity and fuels for space heating, ventilation, and farm-specific operations (e.g., vacuum pumps for milking).

Proposed Aquaculture: As there are no large-scale aquaculture sites in the GLR, annual energy consumption for the proposed New Clee facility is estimated from the lower limit on specific energy consumption for a site in Norway that employs a similar technology [65] and produces around 0.6 times [66] the salmon that is planned to be produced at the proposed site. The upper limit [65] is used for the FloGro site, as prawns require higher temperatures for cultivation compared to salmon [67]. Solar panels at the site [68] could lead to lower electricity consumption, while the adoption of heat pumps [68] and BEV charge points could increase electricity requirements.

Food processing: The seafood processing businesses in the GLR provide 70% of the UK’s seafood [69]. The GLR’s seafood production is estimated using the data for the UK’s seafood consumption [70] and, it is assumed that the GLR accounts for 80% of England’s seafood export [71]. According to Seafish [72], seafood processing outputs in the UK include a mix of fresh/chilled, frozen, dried, smoked, breaded/battered, and non-human products (e.g., fish meal). The specific energy consumption for the seafood processing segment varies according to the output type (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned). Due to gaps in available data, the specific energy consumption of representative data is considered [73]. There is limited evidence on the energy usage from agri-food and livestock processing businesses in the UKFV. Food processing businesses in the UK typically have a mix of mandatory operations (e.g., operation of machinery), refrigeration, space heating, process heating, etc., [74]. Fish processing businesses in the UK use natural gas for heating water, oil, and drying, while electricity is used for other operations.

Dedicated cold stores: For this study, if the volume of the cold store is unknown, it is expressed as a product of its area (if known) and the average height of cold stores in the Grimsby region (10 m [75]) as a proxy until relevant data are acquired. If the area is unknown and the number of pallets is known, then the volume is estimated from the volume-to-pallet ratio for a cold store in Spalding [76]. If more data points are available in the future, the volume-to-pallet ratio can be updated. If neither the area of the identified cold store nor the number of pallets is known, then the volume is assumed to be a product of the average area (5632 m²) and the average height (10 m) of cold stores in the Grimsby region as a proxy until actual data are available. Best practice guidelines [77] have been used to estimate the specific energy consumption for cold stores identified to be efficient by relevant stakeholders, while the annual energy consumption value for other cold stores is assumed to have an average value of 69.9 × (Volume (m³)) kWh, which was also used by the National Centre for Food Manufacturing’s study to assess cold stores in the GLR [75]. The annual energy consumption for all other cold stores is estimated to be 480 × (Volume (m³))^0.79 kWh from values provided by a study that included chilled and frozen stores [78]. Figure A3 in Appendix A provides the methodology developed in this paper for estimating the energy consumed, where cold stores primarily rely on electricity for refrigeration.

Food logistics: Data on the energy consumed by heavy goods vehicles within the UKFV were based on feedback from a relevant stakeholder (food logistics businesses using white diesel for their trucks).

3.5.3. Modelling Segment-Wise Wastage of Energy and Related Vectors

Based on modelling and the analysis assumptions above, business segments are categorised based on the types of energy and related vectors.

Electricity

All business segments: All segments can participate in demand side management to reduce the constraints on existing electric networks. Furthermore, potential adopters of BEVs can provide additional network capacity through the incentive mechanism of vehicle-to-grid. Furthermore, renewable energy generators can export electricity and benefit from the smart export guarantee scheme.

Heat (Low-Grade)

Cold stores, food processing, and greenhouses: Figure 7 provides a heat map for the intensity of annual energy consumption in the base case and potential low-grade waste heat sources (cold stores, seafood processing) and sinks (greenhouse, proposed aquaculture) within the UKFV. This allows, for instance, spatial knowledge of opportunities for waste heat utilisation.

Resources That May Be Converted to Provide Energy (Biomass and Waste)

Agri-food and livestock farming and processing: As the GLR is predominantly an agricultural region with many food processing businesses, a large amount of organic and non-organic waste is generated. As of 2023, there were ~40 anaerobic digestors in the GLR with an installed capacity of around 30 MWe. Four of the anaerobic digestors had the capacity to inject 2000 Nm³/h of biomethane into the grid [79], with one being used to power farm vehicles [80]. Currently, organic agricultural waste from farms is used in anaerobic digestors (as discussed above), utilised as a soil improver [81], and may be used for various other purposes with a high economic value (e.g., potato haulms that are usually burnt can be used as raw material for cosmetics [82]). Conversely, some amount of inorganic waste can end up in landfill.

Proposed aquaculture and seafood processing: A study from Iceland indicates that every part of a fish can be converted into a product of a high economic value [83], and a relevant stakeholder highlighted that there would be no viable waste from this segment for conversion to energy or energy products.

Resources That May Not Be Converted to Energy (Empty Load)

Logistics businesses: A relevant stakeholder indicated that half of the UKFV’s HGVs are in South Lincolnshire. Investigating the potential for load sharing can help reduce regional energy needs whilst being commercially attractive.

3.6. Step 5: Identify the Decarbonisation Challenge

Fuel usage patterns with proposed business expansions are pictorially represented in Figure 8, where first-order estimates of energy-related emissions from the key segments of the UKFV and the data gaps are depicted. Also, end-use applications for segments in the UKFV are also shown in Figure 8.

The decarbonisation challenge has many facets, but here it is proposed to be categorised into people, place, technology, infrastructure, and policy/regulations.

• People
  • Based on the feedback from the review panel and interaction with relevant stakeholders, there are ongoing projects to collect data for energy consumption in the food processing businesses and cold stores. However, the data might not be publicly available due to data sharing agreement constraints. Also, it has been noticed that:

    ○

    Businesses are reluctant to share data without clearly visible benefits.

    ○

    Increasing energy costs had posed threats to around 100,000 small businesses in the UK [84], and many were finding it challenging to pay their energy bills.

• Place
  • Interaction with relevant stakeholders indicated their interest in co-locating with other businesses to reduce energy wastage. However, the lack of knowledge about other businesses’ willingness to participate again impedes a valuable opportunity for reaping the benefits of circular economies.
  • There are numerous initiatives for reducing food waste [85] and technological developments in processes to convert food and commercial waste to products of high economic value as waste-to-energy conversion is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy [86]. According to stakeholders, any decision to invest in waste-to-energy conversion projects must be supported with information about the availability of waste that cannot be utilised in a more commercially attractive way.
• Technology
  • Adopting hydrogen-based tractors [87] and other technologies will depend on the future infrastructure and supply chain capabilities.
  • Electrification needs to be supported by sufficient grid capacity.
  • The current economic crisis impedes investment in higher initial cost decarbonisation technologies despite their long-term cost and environmental benefits.
• Infrastructure
  • The lack of digital infrastructure to enable smart energy systems is a barrier to regional efficiency enhancement techniques (e.g., demand-side management).
  • The current lack of evidence-based data for the timelines of alternative fuel infrastructures can be prohibitive for businesses that would otherwise positively embrace decarbonisation technologies and upskilling programmes.
• Policy/Regulations
  • The Green Gas Support Scheme may result in new biomethane-to-grid connections. It is believed that the anaerobic digestor’s combined heat and power systems are optimised to meet the heating and power requirements at the site and biomethane for the grid. Such incentives tend to drive investments to achieve benefits by exporting energy, potentially increasing resource inefficiency.
  • There are inefficiencies due to a lack of coherent policies. For example, The Green Gas Support Scheme [88] and Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations [89] are progressing towards reducing the percentage of agricultural crop feedstocks. However, the Boiler Upgrade Scheme [29] incentivises biomass boilers, which may use non-sustainable feedstocks [90].

Deficiencies in knowledge, lack of coherency, and a need for responsive actions to promote sustainable development across the Whole System requires the development of a holistic approach.

4. “Whole Systems” Approach—Overcoming the Decarbonisation Challenge

Overcoming the decarbonisation challenge firstly involves outlining Whole System requirements based on the results presented in the previous steps. This is followed by the generation of timelines to visualise Whole System interactions and the development of decision support tools for Whole Systems. These timelines are compiled from extensive information that has the capability of influencing stakeholder’s decision to adopt a particular solution. Due to certainty in available data, the in-depth development of the Whole Systems Approach has been demonstrated for decarbonising HGV fleets in food logistics businesses within the UKFV. In what follows, the timing of actions for a particular solution to be deployed, based on the assessment of data available in the public domain, are considered.

4.1. Step 6: Outline the Whole Systems Requirements

This section outlines the requirements of each Whole Systems tier to overcome the challenge of decarbonising HGV fleets in food logistics businesses within the UKFV. Each tier associated with addressing this challenge is segregated into (i) People: logistics and utility businesses, developers, and LAs, (ii) Place: locations where built-environments for refuelling/charging are needed, (iii) Technology: OEMs of HGVs, (iv) Infrastructure: refuelling/charging stations and associated fuel/electricity supply chain, and (v) Policy: support required for each tier to transform to and to support zero emission HGVs. The evidence required for making informed decisions to implement timely actions for each tier is indicated below.

People: Logistics businesses’ decisions on the choice of technology depend on factors such as the distances travelled, travel times, contracted driver work hours, anticipated payload losses, the cost-effectiveness of options, transitional costs, etc. Demand reduction ambitions stated in local transport plans (e.g., Lincolnshire Freight Strategy [20]) by LAs need to be reflected in the plans of logistics businesses. The choice of technology option requires signposting answers to common questions and a way to incorporate these into transitional planning. The supporting built environments and infrastructure must be reflected in the Local Area Energy Plans and business plans of utility companies and energy consumer businesses. This requires all businesses and LAs to visualise the timescale of future developments in infrastructure and technology availability, as well as the built environment at a place (in the vicinity of depots and along the route) and technology adoption. Sufficient evidence gathered at all local levels would contribute to the planning activities for OEMs and national authorities.

Place: To support businesses with infrastructure for alternate HGV technologies, this study identified South Lincolnshire as a region that needs 50% of the GLR’s infrastructure investment. Identifying strategic locations to attract inward investments for new built environments for alternate fuelling requires an understanding of attributes associated with transport and other developments. These attributes may include the built environment for all transport segments within and passing through the GLR and competing developments. These requirements are influenced by the choice of technology and transition planning of businesses, etc.

Technology: Technology choice is influenced by the commercial availability of appropriate technologies. BEV or H₂-FCEV technologies must be deployed at the scale required to meet the technology phase-out target. Due to the existing deficiencies in deploying BEVs and H₂-FCEVs, appropriate deployment and eventual phase-out of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) with alternate gas and liquid fuels needs planning. Transitional ICEV technologies that support hydrogen (H₂), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquified natural gas (LNG), liquified petroleum gas (LPG), biodiesel, or hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) are currently available. As the commercial deployment of these technologies would be phased to match progress in the supporting infrastructure, the required progress in infrastructure development needs to be identified.

Infrastructure: The infrastructure requirements of people at places for adopting technologies are categorised into the refuelling/charging stations and the associated fuel supply chain (e.g., grid capacity, hydrogen pipelines). If all businesses in the GLR were to adopt H₂-FCEVs, infrastructure associated with the consumption of up to 10% of the hydrogen proposed to be generated in the East Coast Cluster [22] would be required. In the case of complete electrification of these fleets, an additional connected load of up to 700 MVA would be necessary: 1.3 times the existing demand headroom for all primary substations in the GLR. However, the diversified loads are expected to be lower depending on the uptake of BEVs depending on the charging patterns and willingness to participate in demand side management. The transition of the current oil (petrol/diesel) dispensing assets and new infrastructure investments requires clarity in the technology decisions people take in all transport segments. Furthermore, the intermediate development of gas infrastructure and its transition to support hydrogen must be investigated. In addition to the magnitude of infrastructure from transport segments, DNOs require clarity on the timescales when other market segments would require electricity, gas, hydrogen, and other energy vectors.

Policy: Based on available data for the food logistics segment, 850 GWh of electricity and 1840 GWh of hydrogen will be required to replace the existing diesel HGVs in the UKFV with BEVs or H₂-FCEVs, respectively. It is worthwhile highlighting the lower tank-to-wheel energy use of BEVs compared to H₂-FCEVs, which calls for a policy direction to support BEVs. However, the perspectives of and challenges associated by people, place, technology, and infrastructure might call for different solutions. Timely policy actions are required to ensure that people, place, technology, and infrastructure align to phase-out non-zero emission HGVs by 2040. This requires an understanding of the policy gaps and ensuring timely actions are taken where intervention is needed.

4.2. Step 7: Generate Timelines to Visualise Whole Systems Interactions

The interdependency between people, place, technology, infrastructure, and policy/regulations calls for a unique approach to map the timescales of anticipated progress and requirements of the Whole System. These timelines are generated from the information gathered from the UK Government websites, announcements from major infrastructure development companies, and announced decarbonisation targets of major truck OEMs at the time of authoring this paper. This section does not provide an exhaustive list of the policies but attempts to provide a tool to visualise the influence of the Whole System’s component and its implications on the end-use application, in this case, zero-emission HGVs in the UKFV.

The timelines of Whole System interactions and dependencies for the transition of diesel ICEVs to BEVs, H₂-FCEVs, low-carbon-ICEVs are described below and represented in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11. Each figure presents only one example of the complexities associated with Whole Systems and is not exhaustive. To navigate through multiple lines (in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11) that establish connections between the Whole Systems, a number is assigned to the lines that need explanation and is cross-referenced using “{brackets}” at the end of the corresponding explanation in the text (here). Conscious of the regulation of banning non-zero emission HGVs by 2040 {1}, businesses (people) need to identify decarbonisation solutions and prepare their business models based on the identified solutions. To adopt any solution, businesses require technology, infrastructure in the right place, and relevant policy support.

• Technology 

The majority of OEMs supplying large HGVs in the UK were identified [91]; their business and decarbonisation plans were reviewed; and data for announced technology mix targets were collected for this study. For OEMs without an announced BEV or H₂-FCEV target, the developments in alternate technologies were tracked. For example, DAF does not have announced targets but has deployed BEVs and has developed H₂-ICEVs (indicating no planned deployment of H₂-FCEVs). Additional data from the public domain was collected from representative organisations for technology OEMs. Based on the ideology followed in this paper, it can be highlighted that in addition to the OEM’s perceived progression in technology {2}, the actual progression requires the advancement of supporting infrastructure.

• Infrastructure at Place 

Depot and local (within GLR) charging/refuelling: The National Grid’s report anticipates that around 70–90% of the fleets would rely on depot-based refuelling and/or charging [92]. While large fleet owners with private refuelling infrastructure may invest in private charging/refuelling facilities at their depots {3}, this option might not be commercially viable for small fleet operators. These operators could benefit from having shared resources near the depots {4}.

Charging/Refuelling in the UK: For long-haul HGVs (the HGVs that need to refuel/charge outside the GLR), public refuelling/charging in the UK is also required to adopt technologies that do not use diesel {5}. For example, hybrid engines that use H₂ and diesel can rely on diesel (with a reduced range) if H₂ is unavailable along the route. Thus, the progressions of combinations of national public charging/refuelling stations {6}, public charging stations/refuelling in the GLR {7}, and depot-based charging/refuelling stations {8} are prerequisites to the progression of technology adoption. A resilient fuel supply chain is required to operate the charging/refuelling stations. Key requirements to ensure resilience, reliability, and availability in the supply chain for each fuel type will be subsequently discussed.

• Policy and Regulation 

The required policy and regulations for de-risking the adoption of, and investment (by OEMs) in, technology, infrastructure, built-environment development, etc., are discussed under the heading of technology options. Of note here is that the key components for the progression and commercial rollout of technology are the same: the timelines do not depict arrows leading to the commercial rollout for brevity. The essential aspects governing the Whole System transformation to support the adoption of BEVs and H₂-FCEVs, and the adoption and phase-out of low-carbon ICEVs are indicated below.

• BEVs 

The timelines for the Whole System affecting the uptake of BEVs are represented in Figure 9. A suitable incentive to support businesses that were not eligible for decarbonisation competitions [93,94,95,96] or Freight Innovation Fund [97] could help businesses with overhead costs, such as developing robust charging schedules {9}. Based on the analysis of technology OEMs, it was deduced that OEMs can progress towards BEVs now and eventually towards commercial rollout by 2030 if regulated infrastructure is deployed. However, the underdeveloped infrastructure and the potential for faster BEV uptake through depot-based charging calls for the extension of the EV infrastructure grant [98] and its applicability to all depot-based chargers compatible with HGVs {10}. Furthermore, for the development of any charging infrastructure and to achieve financial benefits from the grid export of electricity, it is crucial to have sufficient electric grid network capacity in its vicinity {11}. Currently, the business plans of electricity utility companies have been approved by OFGEM, with investments locked in for fixed periods, as indicated in Figure 9. Careful coordination between the Whole Systems and phasing infrastructure development for depot charging {12}, followed by public charging {13} can provide the necessary support in the subsequent price controls. The recently announced Zero Emission HGV and Infrastructure Programme will help Gridserve deploy 200 charging points (including at least two 1 MW chargers) on public motorways and ten depots by 2026 [21]. However, the growth of public charging stations may require a funding mechanism (e.g., Rapid charging fund) to enhance grid capacities in a timely manner {14}. Also, charging stations will require land allocations in a timely manner to ensure that an appropriate built environment is available {15}. Furthermore, due to the efficiency provided by BEVs, it is vital to incentivise its take-up beyond the early adoption stage. Thus, plug-in grants [36] for all HGVs would make sense until the commercial roll-out of BEVs {16}. Currently, plug-in grants are available for a few battery-electric HGVs [99] until 2025. Introducing a uniform scheme for all BEVs and extending the Plug-in Grant Scheme [36] would de-risk high initial investment costs.

• H₂-FCEVs 

The timelines for the Whole System affecting the uptake of H₂-FCEVs are represented in Figure 10. Once businesses have identified that H₂-FCEVs are the best option for them, they require a trial fund to test their commercial viability and develop a diverse evidence base for its subsequent adoption {9} while H₂-FCEV technology is still at a nascent stage. Once there is a progression in H₂-FCEV technology, financial support for safety training for hydrogen refuelling is important to ensure the smooth transitioning of businesses {10}. With UK-based ventures (e.g., HVS [100], Project ICEBreaker [101]), and EU’s H2Accelerate [102] initiatives into developing heavy-duty H₂-FCEV, progression to this technology could take place by 2030. However, major decisions on deploying H₂-FCEVs would need to be made by 2027 [103] if hydrogen refuelling infrastructure is planned to progress by 2030 [104] and be commercially available by 2035 [104]. Element 2 announced hydrogen refuelling stations with public access for HGVs in Devon and Cornwall [105]. Thus, the ambitious plans of Element 2 and H2 Green [106] to develop 2000 hydrogen refuelling stations by 2030 could include facilities for HGVs in the UK. Furthermore, the H2GVMids project could lead to the development of hydrogen hubs to support the transition of heavy-duty ICEVs to H₂-FCEVs [107]. The development of hydrogen refuelling stations will require a strengthening of hydrogen’s supply chain.

The use of deblended hydrogen can strengthen the supply chain of hydrogen at (e.g., Element 2 [108]) or near hydrogen refuelling stations while hydrogen pipelines are at a nascent or underdeveloped stage {11}. The commercial rollout and cost competitiveness of the H₂-deblending technology [109] {12}, and the policy to blend hydrogen into the transmission network is required for this technology to be implemented {13}. The strategic decision to blend hydrogen into the distribution network [110] strengthens the position for developing the policy for blending hydrogen into the transmission network {14}.

Trials have been planned for hydrogen pipelines in Scotland [111], and there are ambitions to submit the application for development consent order for HyNet pipeline project [112] in 2025. With the planned Project Union to deliver hydrogen to the local transmission system [109] and appropriate exit connection, storage, and distribution, depot-based and public refuelling stations can be planned to progress by 2030. Based on the report for East Coast Cluster for hydrogen [22], hydrogen distribution pipelines in the northern regions of the GLR could be ready by early 2030s, depending on the timely approval from Hydrogen Transport Business Model {15} or private investment. The delay in deploying hydrogen pipelines could also delay the delivery of hydrogen infrastructure. Without the timely deployment of hydrogen into pipelines and roll-out of the hydrogen deblending technology, most of the hydrogen would be transported by road. Higher hydrogen costs could impede the development of supporting infrastructure. Thus, it is important to devise appropriate mechanisms within RIIO-3 to repurpose pipelines {16} and support timely delivery throughout the UK.

At a local level, North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park [113] has a planned refuelling station, while the proposed hydrogen generation plant at South Holland is intended to supply hydrogen for HGV refuelling [114] for the GLR. Financial support for installing hydrogen dispensers can incentivise depot-based refuelling {17}, while a discount on H₂-FCEVs can increase their adoption {18}. It is therefore an important consideration for financial incentives to support the uptake of BEV adoption over H₂-FCEVs to ensure that new technology adopters are aware that selection of BEVs (which are more efficient than H₂-FCEVs) will ensure best use of scarce resources (see Figure 9). Furthermore, with time the H₂-FCEVs could be commercially rolled out and adopted more rapidly than anticipated by the OEMs following timely policy actions regarding biofuels and efuels (discussed below) once regulations are clarified.

• Low-carbon-ICEVs 

The timelines for the Whole Systems affecting the uptake and phase-out of low-carbon-ICEVs are presented in Figure 11. Many European truck manufacturers do not support the inclusion of efuels and biofuels in long-term decarbonisation planning [115]. Thus, OEMs will eventually reduce their ICEVs provision, with only a few models being available. However, according to the analysis performed by ZEMO, around 15% of the truck market in the UK could still be based on efuels and biofuels in 2039 [116]. As technologies that convert renewable energy and viable waste to biofuels and efuels require energy, water, and land, with agricultural crops having large energy, water, and land footprints [117], clarity on the role of biofuels and efuels (without zero tailpipe emissions) is needed. Based on these considerations, a clear policy {9}, which can then be converted to appropriate regulations that clarifies the timings for using biofuels and efuels in all road vehicles and provides clarifications on schemes such as Green Gas Support Scheme, and Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation would be beneficial to prospective users. The appropriate design of incentives for biofuels and efuels can then be used to revise and improve the regulation for the transition planning of these fuels {10}. This clarity in the timings for the use of biofuels and efuels can then provide a commercial route map for OEMs to phase their investments, which will influence the transition planning for infrastructure and consumer businesses {11}. It will also help the Whole Systems align with the timelines (2035–2040) stated by Cadent for transitioning gas infrastructure to support hydrogen refuelling [118,119], and a coherent transitioning of other infrastructure to appropriate charging and refuelling stations. With the Gasrec’s supply chain boost for bio-LNG [120] and Refuels’ target of having 30–40 biomethane stations by 2026 [121], clarity on the timings of adopting biofuels can help these businesses perform appropriate transition planning. With this clarity, the commercial roll-out of H₂-FCEVs can be faster than anticipated from the perspective of OEMs, as investments planned for low-carbon-ICEVs could be diverted to the strengthening of the supply chain for H₂-FCEVs.

These timelines have been generated based on the authors’ estimations and interpretation of data from 2023. Further data collection and scenario refining can help in improving the accuracy of the assumed timescales. This methodology can be extended to generate timelines for investigating options for aiding market change to decarbonise other road transport (e.g., passenger vehicles), non-road transport (e.g., tractors, rail), heating (e.g., heat pump), and power (e.g., wind), circular economic (e.g., phase change material), and digital applications and systems.

4.3. Step 8: Development of Decision Support Tools for Whole Systems

The choice of decision support tools required for Whole Systems depends on the outlined requirements. The incorporation of the timelines generated in the previous section, within any decision support tool will increase coherency between Whole System tiers. Imparting the concepts of energy [122], waste [123], and waste heat [124] hierarchies will contribute to making best use of existing resources.

Energy audits can help consumer businesses identify hourly electricity usage patterns and quantify unutilised energy such as waste heat or unloaded trucks, to explore opportunities for circular economies. The current mandates for energy audits in large business [125] and energy performance certification for different establishments provides some technology options for generating energy, improving energy efficiency, and reducing emissions. Such options may constitute energy efficiency improvement measures (e.g., heat recovery), replacement of old equipment (e.g., tractors with low fuel economy), fuel replacement (e.g., HVO in diesel trucks) or technology replacement (e.g., biomass boiler). Conducting waste audits helps businesses identify options to improve resource efficiency, assess the waste which can be converted to products of high economic value (e.g., fish waste to collagen), and estimate the waste to be disposed of at landfills (and identify the potential for a circular economy). Energy and waste auditing are together defined as resource auditing in this paper. Promoting the concept of resource auditing and optionality analysis for all businesses can holistically improve commercial competitiveness, resource efficiency, and transition to low-carbon technologies/fuels. Businesses can phase investments based on their goals, budgets, willingness to participate, and external factors.

The timelines developed in the previous section can be used by stakeholders of the Whole Systems involved in HGV decarbonisation. Using these timelines with the decision trees provided in Figure A4, Figure A5, Figure A6 and Figure A7 and the supporting

Table A1. Comparison of costs and emissions for different fuels and technologies.

	Renewable or Biofuel Content ^	Cost of Vehicle Compared to a Diesel Truck	Maintenance Costs of Vehicle	Depot Infrastructure	Typical Fuel Requirements for Heavy-Duty HGVs	Current Fuel Cost (2023)	Tailpipe Emissions (g CO2e/mile) [128] #	Well-to-Wheel Emissions (g CO2e/mile) [128]
BEV	NA	2.2 to 2.8 times higher [129]	10% lower (batteries operate for 1000 cycles) [130]	See Table A2	144 kWh/100 km [130]	GBP 0.27/kWh [131]	0	640
FCEV	-	2.2 times higher [129]	10% lower (fuel cells have a life of 10,000 hours) [130]	See Table A2 for infrastructure costs of refuelling CNG, LNG, and hydrogen at depots	9 kg/100 km [130]	GBP 15/kg [132]	0	1880 [133] @ 45–5330 [134]
Diesel-H2 (50% H2 ^)	-	unknown			16.5 L of diesel and 5 kg of H2/100 km !		770 [135]	930 [133] @
LNG	0%	1.25 times higher [136]	Up to 25% higher [136]		57 L/100 km !	GBP 0.6/L [137] &	1075	1450
	50%				55 L/100 km !		540 *	955
CNG	0%				26 kg/100 km !	GBP 1.2/kg [137]	1065	1285
	50%				25 kg/100 km !		533 *	765
Diesel-LPG (25% LPG ^)	0%	Up to GBP 8 k to retrofit [136]	Higher by a few hundred £s per year due to service costs [136]	LPG suppliers may install infrastructure as a part of the fuel supply contract [136]	37 L/100 km !	GBP 0.8/L [138,139] for LPG	1300	1580
	25% (LPG)						1000 *	1295
Diesel +	0%	-	-	-	33 L/100 km	GBP 1.5/L [140]	1335	1660
Biodiesel	30%	Similar for some manufacturers [141]; up to GBP 8 k to retrofit [136]	May need frequent filter replacements [136]	Similar to diesel [136]	34 L/100 km !	Similar to diesel, in some cases [142]	965 *	1266
	100%			Requires cooling equipment compared to diesel [136]	36 L/100 km !		100 *	350
HVO	100%	Similar for some manufacturers [141]	Similar to diesel [136]	Might require more storage tanks than diesel [136]	34 L/100 km !	GBP 1.8/L [143]	20 *	175

* Including CO₂ Offset from Absorbing Sources. ^ Based on energy provided by the fuel. ^! Estimated based on the densities and energy contents of the fuels assuming the same performance as a diesel truck. ^& Estimated based on the cost per kg and its density in the fuel tank. ^@ Based on the global average emissions from hydrogen production. ⁺ Average blend. ^# Assuming complete combustion (real-life emissions can be acquired from ULEMCo: Hydrogen retrofit solutions for commercial vehicle applications [144], LowC^VP: Low Emission Freight & Logistics Trial (LEFT) Key Findings [145], CENEX: An Innovate UK Research Project to Assess the Viability of Gas Vehicles [146], CENEX: Low Carbon Truck and Refuelling Infrastructure Demonstration Trial Evaluation [147]).

and

Table A2. Typical infrastructure costs for charging and refuelling at depots.

Fuel Type	Capacity	Capital Cost per Station (1000 GBP)	Installation Cost per Station (1000 GBP)	Operating Cost per Station per Year (1000 GBP)
Electricity [148] (2019)	150 kW	64	64	2
CNG [149] (2011)	500 kg/day	160	50	36
	1000 kg/day	200	60	42
	2000 kg/day	250	80	60
LNG [149] (2011)	500 kg/day	73	10	22
	1000 kg/day	93	12	27
	2000 kg/day	350	20	30
Hydrogen [148] (2019)	400 kg/day	2565	100	106
	800 kg/day	3420	180	144
	1200 kg/day	4275	180	178

The costs of electric network connections can be estimated from the relevant guidance webpages from Northern Powergrid [150] and National Grid [151]. The network costs are around GBP 97,500 for a hydrogen refuelling station and around GBP 350/kW for electric chargers [148]. Some costs are estimated based on the data from the references and the capacities in column 2 of this table.

for cost and emission data can help logistics businesses in the UKFV make informed decisions on reducing emissions from HGVs. The underpinning methodology can be extended to other technologies, and appropriate decision support tools can be designed for other Whole System tiers.

5. “Whole Systems” LAEP Approach for Strategic Planning—A Way Forward

Previous steps attempt to address the key challenges faced by stakeholders of the Whole Systems and provide suggestions to support informed decision-making. However, ensuring synergistic solutions that are adopted throughout the Whole System requires a common knowledge sharing platform. Thus, a series of workshops focusing on people, place, technology, infrastructure, and policy/regulation is proposed to develop a Whole Systems Approach-based LAEP for Strategic Planning.

5.1. Step 9: People Analysis: Stakeholder Engagement

The LAEP delivery body can invite stakeholders from Whole System tiers to participate in a “Workshop—People” to investigate topics including the ones mentioned below:

• Social acceptability of technologies and infrastructure.
• Preferences in adopting a particular solution.
• Requirements for upskilling and cross-training the workforce.
• Willingness to participate in circular economic and skill development processes.

The outcomes of this workshop can be analysed and processed along with the previously collected data to identify the challenges faced by people and opportunities to mitigate them. As mentioned in the previous section, for the example of HGV decarbonisation, an energy and waste audit will help the business identify empty truck loads, for instance. The proposed workshop will help the LAEP delivery body identify fleet owners willing to participate in the circular economic process of load sharing.

5.2. Step 10: Place Analysis: Stakeholder Engagement

The information processed from the previous steps can be used to generate evidence to meet and exceed regional goals through a “Workshop—Place”. Evidence generated through activities mentioned in the previous step can assess the resources available in the selected regions. The previously collected information can be used to identify topics to clarify important aspects including those listed below:

• How does place affect specific choices?
• Viable options for imparting circular economies and other innovative place-based solutions.
• Regional resources and infrastructure capable of supporting technologies.
• Identification of strategic locations for built environments.

These outcomes can be analysed to identify viable and acceptable regional developments encompassing (but not restricted to) housing and social well-being, economic growth, food security, technology transition, and co-locating complementary businesses. For the example of HGV decarbonisation, the proposed workshop will help to identify viable options for imparting the circular economic process depending on the locations of fleet owner’s depots.

5.3. Step 11: Technology Analysis: Stakeholder Engagement

The analysis of data accrued over the previous steps can provide regional technological preferences and performance for the selected market segments. These insights can then be converted into important topics for a “Workshop—Technology”. Some of the topics are included below:

• Barriers and required interventions to support regional technology requirements.
• Innovations and seed funding opportunities.
• Challenges with and opportunities for technology trials.

Compiling these outcomes along with technology market research and other stakeholder engagement activities can contribute to technological innovations and smooth adoption. For the example of HGV decarbonisation, performing trials of sharing truck loads will aid businesses to reduce costs and generate evidence for implementing the solution on a wider scale.

5.4. Step 12: Infrastructure Analysis: Stakeholder Engagement

Accumulating previously obtained results will provide the LAEP delivery body with information regarding the acceptance of solutions, viable resource allocations, and practically usable technologies. Based on this analysis and preliminary estimations of infrastructure requirements a “Workshop—Infrastructure” will help with the following:

• Identify infrastructure barriers and innovative approaches to reduce the gaps.
• Estimate required investments for existing infrastructure operators.
• Attract inward investment from developers (e.g., digital infrastructure).

Combining the analysis of outcomes of the proposed workshop with the previous steps of the LAEP methodology would help reduce uncertainty and provide more definitive evidence base to stakeholders across the Whole Energy System. For the example of HGV decarbonisation, existing web applications can streamline the process of load sharing. However, rural regions (e.g., Lincolnshire) might require enhanced digital infrastructure.

5.5. Step 13: Policy Analysis: Stakeholder Engagement

All the steps performed throughout the study will outline the key policy challenges associated with sustainable development. These results can be collated to:

• Identify key policy barriers and the initiatives required.
• Increase coherency and consistency in policies across the Whole Systems.

The previous steps in the proposed LAEP methodology can provide evidence for coherent policy development through the participation of stakeholders across the Whole Energy Systems. The proposed method can identify the deficiencies and lack of clarity in the existing policies and interventions required for accelerated decarbonisation while meeting other ambitions. The evidence base generated from the proposed participatory approach can be used along with the information from other activities to inform national policy. For the example of HGV decarbonisation, the evidence of energy savings through load sharing trials can support the development of incentives to impart circular economies and provide the necessary digital infrastructure to support the implementation, among other policy priorities.

This bottom-up approach can highlight the policy requirements at each tier or phase of the methodology implementation. The timelines generated through the proposed methodology are capable of identifying the order in which policy actions need to be implemented to ensure the implementation of a particular solution. Based on the government’s strategic priorities, outputs from the workshops, and other activities, the policies to implement a particular solution can be harmonised.

5.6. Step 14: Verification and Validation of the Whole Systems Approach

To facilitate consistent and coherent transition throughout the Whole System, the LAEP delivery body must verify and validate the approach. This can be carried out through a combination of Review Panel Feedback, testing the developed algorithms, and continued stakeholder engagement to ensure coherency with the assumptions made during the study. This is a continuous process that is required to monitor progress of the developed Whole Systems Approach, as illustrated in Figure 12.

6. Conclusions

This paper considers the challenges facing the development of Local Area Energy Plans, and the relative merits of existing schemes to which it is compared. The authors then propose a new, pragmatic segment-based Whole System Approach for LAEPs, and a detailed exposition of the approach. Following that, the paper identifies the decarbonisation challenges by considering issues arising from people, place, technology, infrastructure, and policy/regulation. To overcome these issues, a novel Whole Systems LAEP Approach for Strategic Planning (see Figure 12) is developed which focusses on a segment-wise development of Whole Systems. This contrasts to previous methodologies that focus on technology-related aspects and building characteristics. The approach aids in developing cross-segment synergies and harvesting innovative ideas that may otherwise have been missed. For instance, modelling a cold store based on the attributes of a building may result in losing the foresight of its viability as a low-grade heat provider to greenhouses, for instance. The proposed approach presents an opportunity for similar and complementary businesses to identify common, cost-effective solutions that are not viable at a single business level. Phasing policy investments in a timely manner to ensure resource and energy efficiency in a spatially just manner before technology switching can reduce the required resources. For example, heat network development funding benefits regions with high magnitudes of heat sources and demands. Sparsely populated regions cannot reap the benefits of such schemes. This calls for alternative mechanisms for these regions to increase resource efficiency. For instance, developing evidence base of waste heat utilisation through technologies such as phase change materials for sparsely populated regions could be considered as a counterpart to heat network funding for densely populated regions. The in-depth development of the methodology is demonstrated for HGV fleet decarbonisation in the UKFV. Based on the acquired data, developments in heavy-duty truck technology, infrastructure, and policy are tracked and valuable insights are generated. This identifies the potential bottlenecks in infrastructure delivery and technology deployment. It is shown that to achieve decarbonisation in a timely manner, actions are needed to strengthen the Whole Systems for BEVs and H₂-FCEVs and perform transition planning of biofuels and efuels in ICEVs. The study conducted for this paper outlined the required interventions for Whole System tiers and infrastructure requirements for technology adoption. The paper has developed a signposting approach to support logistics businesses with informed decision-making. A series of workshops and analysis are proposed to refine the scenarios generated in the paper, fill missing datasets, capture stakeholder views on the key outcomes required, and extend the methodology for all applications and Whole System tiers. Implementing the proposed methodology will lead to the development of more synergistic solutions (including developing evidence led infrastructure deployment, as indicated in Figure 13).

Compared to the existing processes that lead to infrastructure deployment (depicted in Figure 2), the proposed methodology uses Whole System visualisation and analysis to interrogate relevant stakeholders and identify viable options for outcomes from the existing and planned Whole System actions (as highlighted in Figure 13). Outputs from the proposed Whole Systems LAEP Approach will inform the required policy changes at a regional/national level and generate evidence by deriving insights from the relevant stakeholder, which is necessary to frame robust policies [126]. With optionality provided based on existing policies and identified coherent policy directions, the anticipated policy can be directly incorporated into decision-making. The unique visualisation and signposting approach for all stakeholders can provide clarity in developments in technology, infrastructure, and policy. Decision support tools similar to those developed in this paper can be designed to inform energy consumers of long-term options for decarbonising heating/cooling, power applications and local authorities to attract inward investments. This can support businesses (e.g., consumers, utility) and relevant authorities with informed decision-making and transition planning for viable and affordable place-based technical solutions. The proposed workshops, stakeholder engagement, and analysis can help identify coherent solutions and de-risk local business decisions and investments to be made by the stakeholders from the Whole System tiers. The evidence base generated through this methodology will promote inward investment and ensure a resilient and reliable energy supply with optionality in its heart, and not a single reliance on national solutions. The databases generated through the proposed methodology, alongside other work already developed in this space, can all be used to build the evidence base needed to demonstrate gaps in policy, standards, infrastructure, and commercial markets that are lacking today to create the right environment for future decarbonisation success. This process leads to the early identification of bottlenecks and market barriers before strengthening the supply chain for a technology, deploying infrastructure, or making an investment in changing business practice or a policy/regulation to accommodate decarbonisation. The Strategic Planning approach proposed in this paper will result in “win–win” situations and coherent strategies for businesses, authorities, infrastructure operators and developers, and policy makers.

Finally, it is notable that whilst a case study for decarbonising the UKFV in the GLR has been used as a platform to demonstrate the value of the methodology here, it is equally applicable to other sectors/segments, e.g., tourism, for instance. The proposed approach is generic and can be tailored according to the strategic objectives of the LAEP delivery body. To expand the work for other sectors/segments, the LAEP delivery body can identify relevant stakeholders from the sector/segment that needs to be prioritised. Following this approach provides a platform for stakeholders from a region to actively participate in discussions related to their business needs, and the regional deficiencies and requirements.