logo
The net zero fight threatening to blow up Miliband's green dreams

The net zero fight threatening to blow up Miliband's green dreams

Telegrapha day ago

When Ed Miliband took the reins of his old department last summer after 14 years away, the Energy Secretary compared being in government to playing the video game Mario Kart.
'You're driving along, things fly at you and you've got to just keep going,' he joked a few months in.
Some of those flying objects may have been easy to anticipate – not least a rural backlash against his approval of vast solar farms and power lines across swathes of British countryside.
Yet one row Labour's net zero supremo may not have seen coming was a fight over the rather dry-sounding 'review of electricity market arrangements'.
Quietly started in 2023 by Mr Miliband's Conservative predecessors, it includes what has become an incendiary proposal for regional, or 'zonal', electricity pricing.
This proposal would divide Britain's national electricity market into several zones, with power prices set in each area based on local supply and demand dynamics.
In practice, this would mean that people in the heavily populated South East would end up paying more than those in the North, who are closer to Scottish wind farms that generate a lot of power.
It's an idea that has already got energy companies fighting like cats in a sack and is now threatening a political row as well, with Reform, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens all lining up against it.
Now, with a decision expected from Mr Miliband next week, Downing Street has let it be known that Sir Keir Starmer may wade in himself to settle the matter – although sources insist the Prime Minister and his team have no firm views yet.
The 'next Brexit'
For Starmer and Miliband, the stakes could not be higher.
Industry sees the zonal question as one with existential consequences for Labour, arguing it has the potential to make or break Miliband's twin pledges to roll out a clean power system by 2030 and lower household energy bills.
Failure to deliver one or both could fatally undermine public support for net zero at a time when Nigel Farage's Reform Party is describing the issue as the 'next Brexit'.
'Both sides in the zonal debate legitimately believe they are carrying the flame for decarbonisation and doing something righteous on behalf of consumers,' says Adam Bell, a former top Energy Department official who is now a consultant at Stonehaven.
'The problem is, no one can really be certain about who is actually right.'
That has not stopped the various sides from making speeches, publishing studies, filming explainer videos and writing blog posts to plead their case – with the argument pitting some of the biggest names in energy against each other, often in bitter exchanges.
For example, after Scottish Power boss Keith Anderson gave a speech last month warning ministers not to 'tamper with a system that works', Octopus Energy boss Greg Jackson branded his comments 'astonishing'.
'It may work for incumbent energy generators but it doesn't work for households or businesses struggling with Europe's highest energy costs,' Jackson tweeted. The implication was that Scottish Power was defending its profits at the expense of customers.
Zonal supporters such as Octopus and Ovo Energy, regulator Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator (Neso), say that the switch would shave tens of billions of pounds off the cost of the green energy transition by making more efficient use of the electricity grid.
'It's our job to push prices down in the supply chain,' Jackson has said. 'If that means taking the very big producers to task and working hard to squeeze them to be more efficient, so we can pass lower prices to customers, that is our job.'
Eradicating inefficiencies
At the moment, the national pricing system keeps prices in some areas such as London artificially low and prices elsewhere – such as Scotland – artificially high, leading to all kinds of waste and market quirks.
For example, Britain is currently spending more than £1bn a year on switching off wind farms in some locations because the grid is too congested to accept their power at busy times, while firing up gas power plants elsewhere to compensate.
These 'constraint' costs are expected to balloon to more than £3bn a year under the existing system.
Switching to a zonal system would eradicate these kinds of inefficiencies because when there is abundant wind power, prices in places like Scotland would simply plummet, with the inverse true in the South East during peak times.
It would theoretically encourage solar and wind farms to locate much closer to where power is needed, dramatically cutting the amount of money that would need to be spent on grid upgrades. One study shared with the Government, seen by The Telegraph, puts these savings at up to £27bn.
Though wholesale electricity prices would vary between regions, households in almost every area would be better off overall due to the lack of constraint costs and reductions in grid charges, according to a study by FTI Consulting for Octopus.
It estimates that zonal would leave consumers £52bn better off overall over a 20-year period. This equates to something like £50 to £100 off their annual bills, says Jason Mann, an electricity markets expert and the study's author.
The South East would emerge as the only regional loser, to the tune of £3.6bn or about £150m per year. Mann argues this could be remedied with some system tweaks, ensuring no households lose out.
Another potential upside of cheaper electricity in Scotland and the North could be the potential to attract investment in power-hungry data centres and industrial facilities such as hydrogen electrolysers, supporters say.
Zonal issues
Yet any suggestion of overt regional differences may prove politically toxic. Mr Miliband warned in April he would 'not introduce a postcode lottery'.
'Whatever route we go down, my bottom line is bills have got to fall, and they should fall throughout the country,' he told the BBC.
On the other side of the debate, a formidable list of major players are lining up to warn Mr Miliband off the proposals.
They include nearly every major wind farm developer, British Gas owner Centrica, trade bodies MakeUK, SolarUK and Offshore Energies UK, as well as Labour-supporting unions Unite and the GMB.
At the crux of their arguments are two key contentions.
First, that the problems with the current national pricing system can be solved by grid upgrades and lower-key market reforms; and second, that the poor timing of the zonal proposals means they now risk doing more harm than good, by creating so much uncertainty that they derail Mr Miliband's hopes for a green energy construction boom.
Studies produced for wind farm owner SSE by Aquaicity Ltd and LCP paint a starkly different picture to the FTI research, arguing that the consumer savings may be nearly eradicated by price increases.
This would be because wind farm developers, less certain of their future earnings under a reformed system, would demand higher prices in the Government's contracts for difference (CfD) auctions, which feed through directly into the bills paid by households and businesses.
According to LCP, a move to zonal pricing would only save £5bn to 15bn over a 20-year period.
Mr Miliband's clean power action plan – through which he aims to make the grid 95pc powered by renewables in 2030 – rests upon the assumption that the Government will procure unprecedented amounts of new wind farm projects in CfD auctions this summer and next.
Any suggestion that zonal is on the way risks chilling investment, developers have suggested.
Other critics have rubbished claims that cheaper prices in some regions will really cause businesses to relocate.
'I love Scotland, but who's going to start a big factory there?', says Dale Vince, the multimillionaire Labour donor and Ecotricity tycoon.
'I mean, how do you get your workforce there? There's so many practical problems with zonal. I don't understand why it's still being talked about.'
The question of zonal has suddenly taken on more urgency as lobbying ramps up in anticipation of a promised decision this month.
Advocates say that without action now the problems under the current system will only grow more unsustainable.
The amount of money being wasted on a daily basis by wind farms is now being tracked by a website, Wasted Wind. On Thursday it said more than £4.5m had been spent on switching off turbines and finding replacement power.
'The amount you have to pay windfarms to get constrained off – the amount that we end up with a system that is inefficient – if we do absolutely nothing, I think means it is not economically credible for British consumers to leave it as it is,' warned Jonathan Brearley, chief executive of Ofgem, earlier this year.
Although Mr Miliband's officials have backed zonal pricing, the rest of Whitehall is said to be split on the idea and there is growing nervousness in Downing Street about the political consequences if things go wrong.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero insists that the focus will be on 'protecting bill-payers and encouraging investment'.
Whatever Mr Miliband decides to do, people on both sides of the argument agree on one thing: he should get on with it urgently to put an end to any doubts.
Bell, at Stonehaven, believes the hour is so late now that the Government is most likely to kick the can down the road.
Starmer's intervention appears to make that more likely. Downing Street is understood to have requested a further review of the costs and benefits of the policy – raising the prospect that the idea could be killed off or kicked into the long grass.
'If you really just don't want to do this now, you could just say let's put it to one side now and look again in the 2040s,' he says.
Ducking the question may ultimately satisfy no one. But at least Mr Miliband will be able to keep careening forward, Mario Kart-style. Until, at least, the next flying obstacle approaches.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection
Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection

Edinburgh Reporter

timean hour ago

  • Edinburgh Reporter

Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection

In just under a year's time the Scottish Parliamentary election will have decided who will be running the government for the following five years. As is the way of the polls there are some showing that Labour will win, and others that the SNP will win. The proportional representation by which MSPs are elected is not supposed to return a majority government – it happened only once, unusually, with the SNP under Alex Salmond in 2011. Labour won most seats and most votes in 1999 and 2003 but no overall majority. In 2021 the SNP was one short of a majority (there are 129 seats so the majority is 65). In an effort to do business more easily, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, entered into the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens and Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, the co-conveners of the party became government ministers. Now that there is one year before the election Lorna Slater said that her party offers the 'real, hopeful' and 'transformative' change that Scotland needs. We met with Ms Slater on the day when the programme for government was about to be announced by John Swinney the First Minister. She did not believe it would bring many changes, but was proved wrong on one policy – the scrapping of peak rail fares. However the Scottish Greens later responded to the announcement to say that while very welcome and a 'huge win for commuters and climate' the policy change amounted to a U-turn by the government. They also pointed out that this policy was 'initially secured by the Scottish Greens through budget negotiations in 2023 before it was then dropped by the SNP who said the numbers did not stack up to allow them to continue supporting it'. Ahead of the Programme for Government Ms Slater – who hopes to be selected to stand as Green candidate next year, and who hopes to continue as co-leader after an internal election in the summer, said: 'I don't think there'll be any new news. I think it will absolutely be a holding pattern. They don't have a plan for bringing down people's bills, because that would involve having an ambitious heat and buildings bill to insulate homes and improve the grant system and really roll out that programme. 'I think that they're going to kind of curl in on themselves and be unambitious because they're worried about doing anything ambitious before an election.' Out of government Asked if she misses being in government Ms Slater said: 'I really miss the ambitious positive energy we have because we had some really good, ambitious things going, and all the bills that have come out since we've been in government without our influence have been gutted. 'Natural Environment Bill, gutted, heat in buildings Bill, gutted, rent controls watered down. And it just goes to show that with the Greens in there, we were much more ambitious on taking practical action on climate, much more ambitious on tackling landlords, tackling polluting corporations, tackling the vested interests – and the SNP have a lot less interest in that. They have much more interest in keeping things as they are, sort of steadying the ship instead of making big change. And the Greens were about making that big change.' As to the fallout from Scotland's deposit return scheme which has landed the government in court, being sued by Biffa for their expenses getting ready for legislation which did not materialise, she is matter of fact. She said: 'The legislation for that was, of course, passed before I was elected. So in 2020 Scottish Parliament agreed that Scotland would have a deposit return scheme. So that already existed before I was in post, my role was to work with industry to implement that scheme. And that I did, we were weeks away from launching the scheme. 'We had nearly all the producers in Scotland lined up. I think it was 95% of the items that were on shelves in Scotland. The producers of those items had paid their money. They were part of the scheme and we had a workable scheme. It would absolutely have launched on time. It would have had maybe a bit of a rocky start, a bit of a phasing in period, but we absolutely would have launched on time. 'But then because Alister Jack (then Secretary of State for Scotland) interfered with it from February 2023 by putting doubts in the media, (and that was despite the fact that he had stood on Boris Johnson's manifesto to implement a deposit return scheme with with glass), he was able to use the internal market act to veto the scheme. 'Alister Jack never gave any justification or basis for that interference. We asked repeatedly why he didn't want glass in the scheme. He never produced any evidence for that. So that was purely political interference in terms of the scheme itself.' At the time in April 2023 the Scottish Greens called for an investigation into the comments Mr Jack made, saying he had misled the House of Commons. Ms Slater said that this particular interference shows how the Internal Market Act has been used to 'stifle devolution'. She said: ' The deposit return scheme was a fully devolved matter, protecting the environment, recycling schemes – all fully devolved. That the internal market act can be used to undermine Scotland's ambitions and to harm Scottish businesses is a shocking state of affairs.' Under the still relatively new UK government administration she still holds the view that devolution is under threat. She said: 'It's an interesting question about how the Labour government is going to treat this. I have noted of course, that Wales is being allowed to continue forward with a deposit return scheme that has glass in it, even though that does interfere with the Internal market act. So why can't Scotland? Why does Wales get a free pass, and Scotland doesn't. So it isn't clear at all that Keir Starmer is changing direction. He hasn't said he will repeal or even revise the internal market act. So the status quo remains. It depends on the goodwill of individual ministers.' One of the reasons that the Scottish Greens and the SNP made for a relatively easy marriage was over the question of independence on which they agree. Ms Slater said: 'I'm a proponent of Scottish independence, and that is the only way we can be sure to put in place plans and programs that we know won't be interfered with by the UK government.' Whether or not I am selected as a candidate, the Scottish Greens will be standing on being a proudly progressive party of Scottish independence. Other parties, Labour, SNP, have conceded that left ground are moving toward the centre. They're allowing Reform to pull them in that rightward direction. You can see that with Labour, with its anti immigration policies, with its neglect of the social security net, the betrayal of the WASPI women, betrayal of disabled people, people who need benefits to live on – sick and disabled people. 'The Scottish Greens will not betray that ground. We are solidly behind equalities. We are absolutely trans rights supporters. We are absolutely in favour of ambitious work toward net zero. We are not going to give this ground. All of these things are really important to us. Human rights are important to us. A secure social safety net. Taxing the rich to pay for it is something we will we are not shy about saying, the rich for too long, have been under taxed. Have increased their wealth enormously well the poorest suffer. We have hungry children in this country. We also have billionaires. The Scottish Greens don't think that that's right, and that's the ground that we are going to contest the election.' This then shows little change in any policy which the party has stood on before – and their numbers improved at the last election. She continued: 'We are a party of values. We are a value led party. We believe in peace, equality, sustainability and human rights. Radical local democracy. We are not going to change our values, we believe that we set out a vision for a fairer, greener, independent Scotland, and it's how effectively we can persuade people that we have the power to implement such a vision, that it is possible that the future can be brilliant. We just have to decide to make it so. Constituency As to her constituents in Lothians they tell the stories of poverty and lack of benefits that are heard all too often. Ms Slater said that at the top of people's minds is their 'quality of life, and that includes everything from being able to pay their rent, being able to find housing in Edinburgh to anti social behaviour, whether it's in Portobello or Corstorphine. And people are experiencing anti social, social behaviour in the streets, all the usual troubles that go with having an NHS and care system industry and people being able to find places for loved ones in care homes people being able to get medical procedures in a timely manner. 'All those things are, of course, what people are concerned with. We also get a reasonable amount of case work because of decisions of the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Those are decisions that are not taken it at the Scottish level, but we work with constituents who are, you know, facing exorbitant fees, deportation, uncertainty in their visa status because of paperwork problems, those are all the kind of things we can support people with.' But there is at least one small chink of light. Asked if it is easier to work with the UK Government under Labour she concedes it is 'slightly easier, yes it is slightly easier. The Conservative government was extremely hostile to Scottish interests. Some of their MPs wouldn't take, correspondence from MSPs, wouldn't help our constituents if they went through an MSP – so they had to always go through an MP. 'I think things are definitely more cooperative, but it doesn't solve the problem that so much of what we need to do we can't help people with because it has to go to London, because it's not devolved. 'And every single day we come across things, Oh, can we help with this? No, it's not devolved. If only Scotland were an independent country, we could take action these things, and that is frustrating every single day.' Lorna Slater MSP Like this: Like Related

River Island owners draw up rescue plan for high street chain
River Island owners draw up rescue plan for high street chain

Sky News

timean hour ago

  • Sky News

River Island owners draw up rescue plan for high street chain

The family behind River Island, the high street fashion retailer, is drawing up a radical rescue plan which could put significant numbers of stores and jobs at risk. Sky News has learnt that the chain's owners have drafted in advisers from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to devise a formal restructuring plan. The proposals, which are expected to be finalised within weeks, are subject to sign-off, with sources insisting this weekend that any firm decisions about the future of the business have yet to be taken. River Island is one of Britain's best-known clothing chains, operating roughly 230 stores across the country, and employing approximately 5,500 people. Previously named Lewis and Chelsea Girl, the business was founded in 1948 by Bernard Lewis, finally adopting its current brand four decades later. Accounts for River Island Clothing Co for the 52 weeks ending 30 December, 2023 show the company made a £33.2m pre-tax loss. Turnover during the year fell by more than 19% to £578.1m. A restructuring plan is a court-supervised process which enables companies facing financial difficulties to compromise creditors such as landlords in order to avoid insolvency proceedings. In recent years, it has been used by companies including the casual dining chain Prezzo and, more recently, Hobbycraft, the retailer now owned by Modella Capital. One source said that if it proceeded a restructuring plan at River Island could emerge within weeks. This weekend, it was unclear how many stores and jobs might be under threat from a formal rescue deal. In its latest accounts at Companies House, River Island Holdings Limited warned of a multitude of financial and operational risks to its business. "The market for retailing of fashion clothing is fast changing with customer preferences for more diverse, convenient and speedier shopping journeys and with increasing competition especially in the digital space," it said. "The key business risks for the group are the pressures of a highly competitive and changing retail environment combined with increased economic uncertainty. "A number of geopolitical events have resulted in continuing supply chain disruption as well as energy, labour and food price increases, driving inflation and interest rates higher and resulting in weaker disposable income and lower consumer confidence." In January, Sky News reported that River Island had hired AlixPartners, the consulting firm, to undertake work on cost reductions and profit improvement. AlixPartners' role is now understood to have been superseded by that of PwC. Retailers have complained bitterly about the impact of tax changes announced by Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, in last autumn's Budget. Since then, a cluster of well-known chains, including Lakeland and The Original Factory Shop, have been forced to seek new owners. Poundland, the discount retail giant, is in the latter stages of an auction process, with Hilco Capital and Gordon Brothers remaining interested in acquiring it.

Britons are great savers – that's the problem
Britons are great savers – that's the problem

Telegraph

time2 hours ago

  • Telegraph

Britons are great savers – that's the problem

The British aren't bad savers. But – as a nation – we hold much less of our wealth in investments than our American and European counterparts – limiting potential for long-term returns. The Government recognises this issue and is considering savings limits to cash ISAs, which could encourage investment in shares and other assets, but what about the root causes preventing appetite for investing? Robinhood, alongside Global Counsel, examined the barriers to investing for under-represented groups in the UK. Inclusion is foundational to Robinhood's mission: of our 25 million customers, around half are first-time investors. We're working to match that level of access in the UK – and that starts with listening. Research showed that people approach investing differently, with distinct barriers to investing for women and ethnic minorities. Women are significantly less likely to invest than men, and ethnic minorities invest considerably less than the majority population. When they do, motivations vary, and lack of confidence undermines actual capability. Ethnic minority investors are nearly four times more likely to invest to support elder family members, which may explain why they tend to be more focused on medium-term gains over longer-term, personal retirement goals. They are also twice as likely to hold exchange traded funds (ETFs). Confidence in social media is low for all respondents, yet 44pc of ethnic minority respondents are likely to rely on it for investment advice, versus 14pc for non-ethnic minority population. There is also widespread misunderstanding of the minimum amount of capital required to invest. For relatively accessible investments, like stocks and shares Isas, respondents believed they needed, on average, £2,383 to invest – more than 23 times the £100 minimum required by many providers. Policymakers and industry can address the barriers. The Financial Conduct Authority is clear that the consumer duty welcomes innovation, provided that it leads to better consumer outcomes. Historical, well-intentioned regulation has created a market where financial advice is out of reach for many. However, Advice Guidance Boundary review, and more specifically Targeted Support, can now address this by allowing firms to provide advice on the basis of 'people like you', opening financial advice to a wider range of investors. With this in mind, firms should be allowed to re-visit the way investment risk is represented – to help, rather than alienate, investors. Cash products are not required to carry warnings about lower long-term returns or the risk of wealth erosion due to inflation, while investing products must carry multiple downside warnings. Both should carry equally robust and proportionate information – so consumers understand the risks of investing and the risks of holding cash. Additionally, marketing materials should dispel myths about up-front capital requirements for investing. The move to a new Consumer Composite Investments regime should broaden the range of products retail consumers can invest in, including specifying US-domiciled ETFs in the overseas fund regime. The data is clear. UK consumers want to invest more, and in a wider range of assets. This requires coordinated action. But the opportunity to create a nation of long-term investors is too important to miss.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store