Tag Archives: Ed Miliband

Britain, Economic, Energy, Environment, Government, Politics, Society

Great British Energy risks decimating energy security

UK ENERGY POLICY

KEIR Starmer’s aspirations for a carbon-free and energy-secure nation fulfilled at a stroke through the creation of his new quango, Great British Energy (GBE), is at odds with the reality of the situation.

The UK would, of course, welcome a green and pleasant land with cleaner air, lower carbon emissions, cheaper fuel bills, and a reduced dependence on Vladimir Putin and his gas pipelines that run from Russia to the West.

But the truth is the creation of GBE will deliver few, if any, of the bold pledges that Sir Keir Starmer and his Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, are making.

In the King’s Speech, Sir Keir’s new government confirmed that GBE, the state-owned energy company, will develop, own and operate energy projects such as wind farms, using public money to help spur further private sector investment.

But the £8.3billion of money promised by the Exchequer for Britain’s energy transformation over the term of the current parliament will be a mere drop in the ocean.

In spite of the overblown language, this is a fraction of the sums of money already devoted to “climate reduction” goals by our UK-listed oil firms Shell and BP, as well as domestically owned power suppliers Centrica and Scottish & Southern Electricity (SSE).

Some argue it is reassuring that GBE will be headed up by Juergen Maier, the former boss of German multinational Siemens’s British arm, who might bring some much-needed private-sector experience to the job.

What is less reassuring, however, is the disastrous financial performance of Siemens Energy. It ran up losses of £3.7billion in 2023 alone. Combined with the desperate track record of past Labour governments to command and control the economy through grandiose quangos such as the National Enterprise Board of the 1970s, it looks almost inevitable that GBE will become yet another vast black hole, drawing vast public cash at the expense of other strained public services.

Most critically, by blocking future North Sea oil licences, as Starmer has done, and holding fire on the prospects for new nuclear production, the nation’s energy security is being sacrificed in order to pursue unproven green energy “solutions”.

In doing so, the UK is exposed to the danger of factories being closed, the elderly and poor freezing in their homes, and the lights going out when the wind fails to blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

It is also critical that the UK can maintain a minimum level of electricity production at all times – especially if the Government pursues a mad rush towards electric vehicles which, in many cases, are proving notoriously unreliable.

That is why Centrica-owned British Gas is investing heavily in renewing the nation’s gas storage capacity at Rough off the East Yorkshire coast and exploring other potential sites in Wales.

Not to mention that Starmer and Miliband appear willing to trash 100,000 North Sea oil-related jobs, sabotage Aberdeen, and lose £30billion of new investment in fossil fuels, and the engineering services which go with them, to drive the “green revolution”. Labour believes that by signing an agreement with the Crown Estate – which has command over most of the nation’s coastal waters – it can generate £60billion of new investment. The link to the monarchy alone could potentially attract some foreign investors on the grounds of offering a kind of royal imprimatur. But we shouldn’t get carried away by Labour’s hoopla.

The Crown Estate has much more skill and expertise on redeveloping real estate, such as Dumfries House in Scotland, than it does in energy projects. Despite its prestigious reputation, the Crown Estate’s new agreement with Labour, is at the hands of hard economic facts. The only thing that will attract investors is a competitive entry price. If the price at which energy generated at the offshore windfarms can be sold is set too low to make the projects viable, it will deter bidders.

We learnt this the hard way in a crucial auction last year, when not a single company bid to run a new offshore wind farm. That was because the Tory government had set the energy price too low. Even more seriously, a major proposed investment off the Norfolk coast was temporarily put on hold.

The same thing happened in the US last year when Ørsted cancelled £3.3billion of wind projects because it could not make the financial returns.

Earlier this year, BP also pulled out of its involvement in New York state wind farms – at a heavy cost to investors – because of the difficulty of getting decent returns.

The ultimate goal in all of these wind farm projects may have been lower prices for consumers. The reality is that only by offering a higher energy price to investors will they come forward – and the projects be built. It’s an uncomfortable truth for Labour, who want to be seen to be providing the cheapest energy possible to its citizens.

They have been repeatedly questioned about when, or even if, their “Green New Deal” would deliver lower prices for consumers, but Labour have been unable to answer. So much for cheaper bills and the election manifesto pledge that consumers would be £300 a year better off.

A secondary aim of GBE is to boost our manufacturing sector, creating new skills and employment opportunities to replace those in fossil fuels.

Certainly, this is a perfectly noble aim. But in Britain, we have already sold ourselves out. Most of the solar panels being installed on the roofs of homes and factories across the UK are being built in China at a fraction of the cost they can be made in the UK.

One only has to look at how Beijing is dominating the market for electric cars – and the 50 per cent tariffs imposed by the US and Europe to slow imports – to understand how difficult it is going to be to compete with Asian production.

There is also evidence that Chinese suppliers of wind farm equipment are using cheap Uyghur labour to manufacture wind turbines. It will be all but impossible for UK manufacturers to compete (currently responsible for less than 10 per cent of wind farm components).

There is one area of green technology where Britian does have a competitive quality and engineering advantage. Rolls-Royce, with the assistance of government funding, leads the world in the development of “small modular reactors”. These are mini, simple-to-construct nuclear reactors based on the turbines that power nuclear-powered submarines.

Rolls-Royce believes it is capable of capturing a £250billion global market if it receives the go-ahead from Whitehall for UK production. The Czech Republic has already expressed an interest in buying them.

Tens of thousands of real jobs – not the Potemkin quango roles envisioned by the UK’s new Government – are there to be created.

We can only hope for the success of Great British Energy and the zero-carbon nirvana envisaged by our mission-driven Government.

But there are huge fears in creating a taxpayer-funded white elephant which will decimate our energy security.

Standard
Britain, Business, Energy, Government, Politics, Society

Energy firms and the responsibilities they have…

UK ENERGY FIRMS

The decision by Britain’s biggest energy firms to send junior executives to face a grilling by MPs at this week’s select committee inquiry into soaring utility bills beggars belief.

The distinct absence of energy bosses, who are paid mega-buck salaries, goes to the heart of important issues of power, responsibility and accountability in this country. The nonappearance of chief executives also suggests that energy firms have learned little from recent history about the relationship between large consumer businesses and the customers they profess to serve.

It is not inconceivable to think that the absent bosses had in mind the cross-examinations endured by bank chiefs (including Fred Goodwin of RBS) by MPs in the wake of the government bailout of two of Britain’s major banks. Mr Goodwin – formerly Sir Fred, who has since been stripped of his knighthood – and his colleagues had to make humbling apologies for their actions as MPs held them to account.

If energy bosses had hoped to body-swerve a similar scenario as they are being held to account for inflation-busting price hikes, then they have fundamentally misunderstood their privileged position in British society, and their responsibilities in relation to regulations set out by Parliament.

Energy firms cannot take the view that their business is a private matter between them, their shareholders and their consumers. If that ever was the case – and the apparent powerlessness of the OFGEM regulator has often made it seem so – it is certainly not the case now.

Energy bills and the way they are being calculated now stand at the nexus between industry, politics and austerity. The ‘cost of living’ factor is a key voter concern and has become a major political issue in the run-up to the 2015 General Election. The main topic of political discourse was thrown open ever since Ed Miliband threw down the gauntlet at the Labour party conference, promising a price freeze and cutting electricity and gas bills if he made it into Downing Street. For the Conservatives, former prime minister Sir John Major floated the notion of a windfall tax on the energy firms, should a particularly harsh winter produce bumper profits. In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist Party produced its own riposte, with a pledge that energy bills would be reduced by 5 per cent in an independent Scotland. The political battle over energy is heating up.

With the cost of living set to continue to be the most pressing political concern, Britain’s energy bosses need to accept they can run, but they cannot hide. They need to engage with this process – by listening, explaining and being open to market reform – or they will end up on the receiving end of both political and public indignation.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Energy, Government, Politics, Society

The folly of Labour’s energy policy and what needs to be done…

ENERGY MARKET

Ed Miliband’s headline-grabbing pledge to freeze energy prices until 2017 if Labour is elected at the next General Election has already seen one of the ‘Big Six’ suppliers, SSE, raise its prices by an average of 8.2 per cent. Dire warnings have followed that if other utility companies follow suite, as they are expected to, the poor will have to choose between heating and eating as the winter bites. Mr Miliband could not have planned it better – first, we witnessed billions being wiped off the stock market following his announcement on an energy-price freeze at the Labour Party conference. And now, two weeks on, we are braced for yet another round of what could amount to double-digit increases to the basic price of energy for consumers.

Despite SSE’s decision, we must examine more closely why the facts of the energy market fail to conform to Mr Miliband’s egalitarian rhetoric. To start with, while British consumers may well be aggrieved with rising energy bills, they are hardly in isolation. Last year, our electricity prices were ranked 12th highest in the European Union, below all of our major rivals (except France). Britain’s gas prices were the lowest in Western Europe.

Next, it should be pointed out that many of the factors behind rising prices are beyond the control of any energy company or politician. As North Sea supplies dwindle, the UK is increasingly reliant on imported gas from countries such a Qatar. Others are in the same fix, too, with prices being driven in accordance with the laws of economics and the market.

What comes next is even more important to understand. While Mr Miliband has sought to frame the energy debate as a ‘cost of living’ issue, this is cunning and shrewd brinkmanship. The fact that energy bills have risen by a quarter over the past five years, at a time of huge pressure on incomes, has infuriated many. Nowadays, though, energy prices are being more robustly used as a policy tool. They are being used to subsidise the next generation of power stations – where the cost of building and construction has risen sharply due to Labour’s failure to replace those it mothballed. This raises the extraordinary prospect of widespread blackouts as the conceivable position arises of demand outstripping supply. Surging energy bills are also being used to fund a decarbonisation agenda that has seen non-competitive renewables receive bountiful sums in subsidies.

Yet, all the more surprising that the Labour leader does not recognise this, despite the fact it was Mr Miliband who had set-up the regime in the first place, when he was energy and climate change secretary in the last Labour government. At first, and to be fair, the Conservatives were happy to go along with it, although they have increasingly had second thoughts. Unfortunately, when the coalition came into being the control of energy was handed to the Liberal Democrats – who remain as fixated to the green and environmental agenda as Labour. The LibDem part of the coalition has made clear – through Vince Cable, the Business Secretary – that the renewables levy is non-negotiable.

So, what could the Conservatives do to bring down prices – and persuade voters that Labour’s offer is pie in the sky politics, if not complete nonsense?  A blueprint on Tory energy policy could be set out, countering the need to argue on a point-by-point basis with Labour on its policy, and one which should be designed to provide immediate relief. This is an opportunity for the Tory party to show how a majority Conservative government would help consumers.

A plan to create a proper market in energy, with smaller providers able to compete, would provide the market with competition that is much needed, particularly if new entrants to the market were made exempt from eco-levies. The current oligopoly serves no one’s interests other than the shareholders of the Big Six and the huge profits retained by them.

A new vision should accept that more money will be needed for energy infrastructure, but one where the new generating capacity is as cost-effective as possible, and delivers electricity at the lowest possible price. Embracing the shale gas revolution, for instance, would be a good start in that direction. Others might suggest decarbonising by building other types of energy driven plants but with a more rigorous subsidy regime in place. The sums wasted on renewable energy supplies have been astronomical. The status quo is to continue lumbering businesses and firms with unaffordable and uncompetitive energy costs.

Those subsidies that survive under such a plan should be stripped out of energy bills and instead become part of general taxation. Disguising such costs by loading them onto consumers discriminates against the poorest, an unfair and dishonest approach when many are struggling to pay for their gas and electricity anyway.

Keeping energy costs down can only be achieved if the market is made to work properly, not through a price-fixing cartel where the market is effectively rigged.

Standard