Offshore wind farms to be allowed to apply for contracts before planning consent
Energy secretary Ed Miliband said changes to Contracts for Difference (CfD) rules will give developers 'the certainty they need to build in Britain' and invest in more clean energy projects.
Auctions for the CfD scheme see developers bid to secure a fixed price contract for what they can charge for the renewable power they generate.
This system helps to protect them from market volatility, incentivising investment in new wind and solar farms.
Earlier this year, the Government launched a consultation on the flagship CfD scheme, including proposals to remove planning barriers.
It has now given the green light to changes to the scheme ahead of the next planned auction process, Allocation Round 7 (AR7), which is due to open in August.
Officials have said this will include increasing the length of contracts from 15 years to 20 years for offshore wind, onshore wind and solar projects.
It said this is intended to spread out the costs of energy projects over a longer period and potentially reduce costs for consumers, while also improving investors confidence.
Changes will also include allowing offshore wind projects to apply for a contract while awaiting full planning consent, in a bid to reduce completion times.
The department will also change how budgets are set and published to allow the energy secretary to view developer bids before setting his final budget.
Mr Miliband said: 'We need to go further and faster to make Britain a clean energy superpower, end our reliance on volatile global gas prices and make working people better off with homegrown power we control.
'These reforms will give developers the certainty they need to build in Britain, helping deliver more clean power projects and supporting thousands of jobs – all part of the mission to bring bills down for good through our plan for change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Who will benefit the most from new rules about voter ID?
The announcement about giving the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds in all UK elections has obviously caused huge excitement, and some controversy. However, the experts say that the number of new voters will in practice be very small, and that it will make only a marginal difference to the result of a general election – because some won't vote, and there's no God-given law about them all voting Labour. Much more significant are the new rules on voter ID. The range of acceptable documents will be widened to include, for example, bank cards. Whatever the advantage it might bestow on any particular party at an election, proponents say it will boost turnout, and engagement with the democratic process... What are the changes? The government says its elections bill will allow people to use UK-issued bank cards as proof of identity, and of course, these do not usually carry an image of the user. In addition, there will be 'more digital options to support voters and polling station staff, including allowing accepted IDs such as the Veteran Card and UK driving licence to be used at polling stations when they become available in digital format'. Why are they doing this? The cynics say it is because it will benefit Labour disproportionately. Others say that, true or not, that's less important than allowing people to vote, and that the threat of electoral fraud has been greatly exaggerated. Historically, according to the Electoral Commission and the academics, there's been little in Great Britain even in local elections, and it is virtually unknown in general elections. Where it has cropped up, such as in Tower Hamlets, it has been dealt with. The counterclaim is that photo ID was brought in by the Conservatives in the last parliament in order to help them and to suppress the Labour vote. A point lost to history is that the 2019 Conservative manifesto did not specify 'photo' ID as the preferred option. (Northern Ireland has needed photo ID for far longer, because of much more voter 'personation'. Hence the local slogan 'Vote early, vote often'.) How many people have been affected by the rules on photo ID? Probably in the hundreds of thousands, and maybe more. The polling company More in Common say that, on the basis of polling after the last election, more than 850,000 would have been turned away at the polling station for lack of ID, and – given that some returned – perhaps 400,000 lost their vote. It affected voters from ethnic minority groups disproportionately: the poll suggested that 6.5 per cent of voters of colour were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5 per cent of white voters. But of course, no one really has any idea how many voters didn't even bother to go to the polls who wished to, because they knew they didn't have the necessary ID – or they did but it had some minor discrepancy, such as a variation in their first name or the precise spelling of their surname. Local council 'greeters' posted outside polling stations may also have stopped people from entering the premises, and thus these would-be voters would have gone unnoticed by the local election officials or the Electoral Commission. What about the millions who aren't registered at all? The government says that an increasingly automated voter registration system will also make it easier for people to register to vote, and will reduce the need for them to fill out their details across different government services on multiple occasions. Who will the reforms help? On balance, Labour, because of its relatively high vote among some ethnic minorities; but also, for that same reason, the Corbynite independents who took seats from Labour in strongly Muslim areas even in a strong year such as 2024. Reform UK might also see some benefit, because their vote is skewed towards more disadvantaged places, where turnouts are traditionally low. Automated registration among disaffected non-voters might give them a bit of a boost. Will it save the Labour Party? No. As with votes at 16, the numbers aren't going to make that much of a difference, and in our present confused four- or five-party system, it's hard to see anyone gaining a decisive advantage. And voting allegiances by age, class and ethnicity, for example, can shift over time anyway. But in a very close contest, who knows? What about postal voting? This seems to be another problem for turnout. The government says of last July: 'Overall, 8 per cent of non-voters mentioned they did not vote because of an issue related to their postal vote (such as missing the deadline to apply, forms arriving late and forgetting to send their postal vote) – with this figure rising to 13 per cent in Scotland and Wales.' The deterioration in the postal system has added fresh challenges to a method of voting many find essential, or more convenient. So the proposal is to change the deadline in Great Britain to apply for a postal vote, moving it from 11 to 14 working days before a poll, thereby providing more time between the application deadline and polling day. What about postal vote fraud? This only became much of an issue in Britain after the contested 2020 US presidential election, and Donald Trump's unfounded allegations that it was rigged. Nigel Farage and Reform UK make a big deal of it, and Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, has raised it again in the Commons this week, stating: 'I have seen people carrying bag-loads of postal votes to a polling station on election day.' The relevant minister, Rushanara Ali, told him to tell the police.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
President Starmer? PM to beef up Downing Street to get a grip on chaos
Sir Keir Starmer is looking at creating a new 'Department for Downing Street' in an attempt to stop dysfunction at the centre of government. The shake-up would see a senior civil servant appointed to a lead role and scores of other officials drafted in, strengthening the Prime Minister's ability to drive through change in Whitehall. Interest in the idea reflects both disillusionment in Number 10 about the existing government machine and recent high-profile setbacks such as the welfare cuts U-turn. The idea opens up Sir Keir – who has nothing like the staff support enjoyed by the US president – to the charge of a 'presidential' land grab. Boris Johnson launched a similar move with his own attempted ' reset ' as Tory MPs tried to oust him in 2022, but the changes were killed off when he was forced from office. A Whitehall organisational shake-up forms part of a wider 'reset' being mulled over in Downing Street after a year in office and a bruising welfare cuts rebellion. When and how to reshuffle ministers in an attempt to better deliver on Sir Keir's priorities, and potential personnel changes in Number 10 are also believed to be under consideration. Work being done by a think tank closely aligned with Downing Street has become a point of interest among Sir Keir's allies as they consider how to improve things before the autumn. The Future Governance Forum was founded by Nathan Yeowell, a friend of Morgan McSweeney, Sir Keir's chief of staff who will play a key role in deciding any overhaul. The think tank, while non-partisan, has done work which informed Labour on the transition into power and how to deliver 'mission-driven government' – the approach Sir Keir has vowed to adopt in office. In recent weeks there is understood to have been particular interest from Downing Street insiders in a months-long series of work being run by the foundation called 'in power'. It is being headed up by Helen MacNamara, a former civil servant who rose to deputy cabinet secretary before leaving government in 2021 after tensions on how to tackle Covid in Mr Johnson's team. Hundreds of former government figures of all political stripes and none have been interviewed for the project, the outcomes of which will be published later in the summer. Its core recommendation is expected to be that a Department for Downing Street is established, a proposal that sources say is being actively considered inside Sir Keir's close team. 'There is a deafening consensus that the PM will be better served with a department,' said one source familiar with the foundation's work. 'It is quite hard to find someone who has worked in No10 who thinks it is set up brilliantly.' Complaints that Downing Street is ill-equipped to support the demands of a 21st century prime minister have been voiced for many years from Tories and Labour figures alike. The White House brings together hundreds of officials, including two standalone bodies advising on economic policy and national security, to help the US president make decisions. By comparison, Number 10 brings together a collection of a few dozen political advisers and a civil service team that is less senior than is found in other great offices of state. Much of the influence of the prime minister is wielded through the Cabinet Office, a department whose exact role is reshaped by every incumbent and can often be left ill-defined. Creating a 'Department of Downing Street' would likely see the appointment, as with other departments, of a senior civil servant to the role of permanent secretary. How Sir Chris Wormald, the recently appointed Cabinet Secretary – the country's most senior civil servant – would fit in this new system would be closely watched. He has been the source of some critical anonymous briefings from inside Number 10 that have made the newspapers – mutterings waved away by many in Downing Street. Mr Johnson announced a new 'Office of the Prime Minister' in January 2022 as he was attempting to stabilise his premiership after revelations of Covid lockdown breaches dubbed 'partygate'. Samantha Jones, a health official who had helped counter the Covid pandemic from inside the government, was announced the following month as the unit's new permanent secretary. But five months later Mr Johnson was forced from office by his own MPs and the restructuring of Downing Street was quietly dropped. If the Prime Minister does end up adopting and announcing a Downing Street Department, the idea could well be panned as window-dressing by his political opponents. A Reform source said: 'This sounds like an attempt by Starmer to become more presidential, but he has no real power left after multiple U-turns. Beefing up Downing Street won't solve his problems.'
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
From NHS to Send: the key areas Labour wants to improve before next election
Angela Rayner has called on Labour colleagues to 'step up and make that case' for the government's achievements, saying it was important to stress policies were not about short-term fixes but 'fundamental reforms'. Here are four areas where Labour is seeking to improve society – but faces a race against time before the next election to do so. This is in one sense an area where the government can claim quick-ish gains, with the boast that an additional 2m appointments have been created since the election, and promises to cut waiting times, a promise which hangs in the balance. But at the same time, more fundamental change is needed to cope with an ageing population more prone to chronic conditions. Hence the NHS 10-year plan, set out earlier this month and intended to move the health service to a different model, one based less on acute hospital care and more on community hubs. Then there is the parallel process to find a working model for older people's social care. As with health, this combines the very immediate and the hugely knotty and long term. In the foreground is the political wreckage of the government's attempt to shave £5bn off the annual welfare bill, primarily by tightening rules for personal independence payment, an idea dropped amid a massive Labour rebellion. The context to that, of course, is the significant increase in the numbers of people receiving benefits for long-term sickness and disability, an area where the experts are not even clear precisely what is causing it, let alone how to alleviate it. This is likely to be a challenge for several governments to come. A subject just as pressing and controversial as welfare, and also one where there are no easy solutions on offer. Ministers have pledged a thorough examination of the current system, which is both increasingly expensive and the cause of much complaint and anguish for parents and children seeking to navigate it. While ministers have guaranteed the continuation of some sort of statutory provision for Send pupils, this will not necessarily be via the current method of education, health and care plans, or EHCPs, despite the worries of campaigners. After the welfare debacle, expect much caution. As is a common political truism, the things run by councils – bin collections, libraries, social care – are often the ones that voters notice most immediately. And it's fair to say that in many cases, the impressions are not good. Labour has already embarked on a shake-up of local government, combining a series of smaller councils and creating more mayoralties. This may simplify some things, but a much deeper malaise is the lack of money for local government, not helped by the reliance on a council tax system based on valuations last done in 1993. This is probably too big an ask for now, but at some point a government will have to get to grips with it.
