Thoughts on Powerswitch becoming a CIC?

[PowerSwitchJames]

But surely all political activities involve, in some manner, promoting or opposing policies of some sort?

The other option is that PowerSwitch CIC is set up simply with the remit of organising events raising awareness and dicussion of oil depletion, rather than calling for any policy changes in particular. That is PowerSwitch's original remit anyhow - we are an apolitical organisation.

In this manner, we are about education.

[skeptik]

Hang on though - the guy who told us about these at the meeting in February was part of a "green" group of some sort that had registered as a CIC, so I wonder how they'd got round it?

Probably agroup of community activists who restrict themselves to local activies - cleaning supermrket trolleys out of the local canal, restoring hedges - that sort of thing, i.e. practical local environmentalism - not campaigning on issues. It would make a lot of sense for them to be a CIC if any of their projects involved the neccessity to fundraise a sizeable ammount of money.

[skeptik]

we are an apolitical organisation.

You think so? I dont. What Powerswitch is not is PARTY political. Energy is obviously a highly charged, highly political issue which in many instances cuts across party lines. This is exemplified by the positions taken by George Bush and Congressman Roscoe Bartlett in the USA - both are conservative Republicans but are poles apart on the politics of energy. Bush - "The American way of life is not negotiable" (effectively, despite recent rhetoric, do bugger all, maintain tax breaks for oil co's, business as usual) Bartlett - "A Manhattan Project scale effort is required to eliminate our dependency on fossil fuels"

For the sake of argument I think I could outline a political manifesto for Powerswitch. Obviously these are just the major headings...

Pro energy conservation - i.e. identifying and encouraging the adoption of methods of doing things DIFFERENTLY which result in reduced energy consumption. These are mainly lifestyle issues.

Pro energy efficiency - i.e. identifying and encouraging the adoption of methods of doing the SAME things as we always have in a more energy efficient manner. e.g. halving the energy needed to produce a loaf of bread. We are not ever going to stop wanting a loaf of bread so this doesnt come under conservation - which would involve NOT eating a loaf of bread. These are mainly systems and technology issues.

Pro the adoption of all renewable energy sources as swiftly as possible. This to involve sympathetic regulation and tax environment and greatly increased public expenditure on renewables R&D, both in the public (university research) and private sectors.

Against increasing dependence on fossil fuels, specifically in the UK imported natural gas as proposed by current govt policy in the white paper of 2003. Globally natural gas is likely to be in very short supply by 2030. (See graphs by Jean Laherrere , ASPO)

That political enough for you?

Think about it. Even the name 'Powerswitch' is advocating a course of action i.e. politics - its not just educational.

I think I'd leave Nuclear issue out of the manifesto as there seems to be no consensus on that even amongst environmentalist groups.

Personally I would chuck a new round of at least a dozen nuclear plants into the mix to relace those which are scheduled for decommisioning - to be built on the same sites as the old. Obvious place as all the support infrastructure - roads, a community of skilled nuclear workers (omigod - why did I think of Homer Simpson when I wrote that?) , high voltage lines, local support engineering and specialist services firms etc etc. - is already in place. Then we'd need to dig a very deep hole somewhere up in Northern Scotland to stash the waste. I believe one of the Scottish Lairds has alreeady volunteered his enormous estate ( no doubt with an eye to enormous rent money, in perpetuity ) as being geologically suitable.

[RevdTess]

I agree with skeptik that since powerswitch is clearly trying to change government policy on energy issues, we are a political organisation under the terms that skeptik quoted.

I don't agree with mike when he says that setting up a company is too complicated. Individual IT professionals have done it for years, and is little more arduous than proper record-keeping and paying an accountant to audit your annual accounts. In fact I'm not entirely sure what advantage a CIC has over a for-profit company, since I'm too lazy to read skeptik's link. Presumably it's all about the tax.

[RevdTess]

So from this introduction : http://www.dti.gov.uk/cics/pdfs/cicfactsheet1.pdf I come to the following conclusions:-

1) A CIC is just as hard to set up and run as a typical limited company.
2) A CIC is less regulated than a charity but has none of the tax advantages.
3) A CIC is to all intents and purposes the same as a Ltd company but with regulations that prevent most of the profits being distributed to shareholders as dividends ("asset lock") and restrictions on how political you can be. (For a start it looks like we couldn't call for any changes in the law, which frankly I think we should be doing more often, not less).

Except for the inherent virtue of being a CIC (and thereby guaranteeing to donators and investors that their money is used for the good of "the community"), there doesn't seem to be much (if any) advantage over the Ltd company structure.

I see us as a campaigning organisation not dissimilar to the League Against Cruel Sports, which takes donations and has a paying membership, puts out quarterly magazines, lobbies the govt and puts out articles and press releases via the media. From wikipedia, LACS is "a membership based organisation whose corporate structure includes both a limited company and a charity (some of its party political campaigning would not be allowed under charity law)." I'm not sure how they combine the two, but it seems likely to me that we'll at least need the Ltd company portion.

[PowerSwitchJames]

I think section 2 of that part provides a useful caveat. As I said, we can set it up as PowerSwitch CIC which has the remit for providing education and not demands. This is much what we have been doing, saying "These are the problems, these are why the solutions you think will work won't work...now what are you going to do?" PowerSwitch, as an organisation, has never come out and said "You should change this law," but more along the lines of "This law won't work/is stupid because..." Of course, as individuals, we say what we want!
The big benefit I think from registering as a CIC is that we will show anyone interested that we are acting out of 'Community Interest' and not operating for a profit, and therefore our aims will be seen as more trustworthy.

Political activities not to be treated as being carried on for the benefit of the community
3. ?(1) For the purposes of the community interest test the following activities are to be treated as not being activities which a reasonable person might consider are activities carried on for the benefit of the community:

(a) the promotion of, or the opposition to, changes in?

(i) any law applicable in Great Britain or elsewhere; or

(ii) the policy adopted by any governmental or public authority in relation to any matter;

(b) the promotion of, or the opposition (including the promotion of changes) to, the policy which any governmental or public authority proposes to adopt in relation to any matter; and

(c) activities which can reasonably be regarded as intended or likely to?

(i) provide or affect support (whether financial or otherwise) for a political party or political campaigning organisation; or

(ii) influence voters in relation to any election or referendum.

(2) But activities of the descriptions prescribed in paragraph (1) are to be treated as being activities which a reasonable person might consider are activities carried on for the benefit of the community if?

(a) they can reasonably be regarded as incidental to other activities, which a reasonable person might consider are being carried on for the benefit the community; and

(b) those other activities cannot reasonably be regarded as incidental to activities of any of the descriptions prescribed in paragraph (1).

[RevdTess]

I think section 2 of that part provides a useful caveat.

I suppose until you try to get it past the regulator we aren't going to know one way or the other what a 'reasonable person' might think.

As I understand it CAT is also a charity/Ltd combo, though I may be wrong on that. It seems to be the most flexible approach if you have charitable (educational) and political/commercial motives (lobbying, selling DVDs etc).

But obviously there's nothing to lose by trying the CIC route.

[skeptik]

SO stripping out the crap we have:

(2) But activities of the descriptions prescribed in paragraph (1) are to be treated as being activities which a reasonable person might consider are activities carried on for the benefit of the community if they can reasonably be regarded as incidental to other activities, which a reasonable person might consider are being carried on for the benefit the community; and those other activities cannot reasonably be regarded as incidental to activities of any of the descriptions prescribed in paragraph 1

If I can understqnd that somewhat boggling and what feels like a circular argument - We still have a presciption against any any direct campaigning. Only allowed if it more or less happens by 'accident' , incidental to some other activity. DO you want to hobble Powerswitch in this way?

[PowerSwitchJames]

I am not convinced it will limit us, and could well enable us by opening up opportunities for further funding. However, I will speak to the CIC regulator tomorrow and find out exactly what it means. Maybe they will have other options for us.

btw, thank you all for showing interest in this. It means a lot to me that people care about what we're doing.

[newmac]

I suspect that this is standard wording that is put in place so that it can be invoked as and when the government wants to close an organisation down. In the case of powerswitch, although I think that we may not always back up government policy, I doubt we would ever be in the category of being a threat to the government/public safety etc.

I'm pretty sure that public companies have similar clauses about public safety/policy etc but when was the last time you saw a public companies charter being revoked?

James can you let me know what your conversation with CIC people goes like.

[PowerSwitchJames]

Just had a chat with them. Just confirms much what we've been saying in terms of pros and cons. It all depends on what the regulator decides but as long as opposing or proposing laws is not the primary aim, and is only incidental, it shouldn't be a problem. The other option is to set up as a standard limited company, but CICs have the branding that we desire. We can set up as a ltd company, and then convert to a CIC at a later date.

[Ballard]

How easy is it to do the opposite and change from CIC to a standard limited company at a later date if TPTB start to limit the activities of Powerswitch?

[PowerSwitchJames]

Pretty easy. Works both ways.

[tattercoats]

I know I'm not the only one who appreciates the work and dedication you and the team are putting into this, James. A lot of us care about PS very much. Thank you for this debate on CIC / Ltd co. status.

[RookieJr]

The other option is that PowerSwitch CIC is set up simply with the remit of organising events raising awareness and dicussion of oil depletion, rather than calling for any policy changes in particular.

But the very core of the peak oil discussion involves political change and pretty huge political change at that. After all, peak oil requires massive change in the way we live our lives and laws need changing and creating to accomplish this. I'd suggest that all peak oil movements ARE political.

I understand what newmac is saying about not being a threat to public safety and thats true, but thats not what the perception will be.