logo
Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to NOT provide power

Britain's energy bills problem - and why firms are paid huge sums to NOT provide power

Yahooa day ago

It is 1am on 3 June. A near gale force wind is blasting into Scotland. Great weather for the Moray East and West offshore wind farms, you would have thought.
The two farms are 13 miles off the north-east coast of Scotland and include some of the biggest wind turbines in the UK, at 257m high. With winds like that they should be operating at maximum capacity, generating what the developer, Ocean Winds, claims is enough power to meet the electricity needs of well over a million homes.
Except they are not.
That's because if you thought that once an electricity generator - whether it be a wind farm or a gas-powered plant - was connected to the national grid it could seamlessly send its electricity wherever it was needed in the country, you'd be wrong.
The electricity grid was built to deliver power generated by coal and gas plants near the country's major cities and towns, and doesn't always have sufficient capacity in the wires that carry electricity around the country to get the new renewable electricity generated way out in the wild seas and rural areas.
And this has major consequences.
The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can't take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.
It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded - one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.
At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.
Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland's largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy.
Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company's analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.
It's pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government's promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.
Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there'll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.
But in reality, it's not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.
The proposals have sparked such bitter debate that one senior energy industry executive called it "the most vicious policy fight" he has ever known. He has, he says, "lost friends" over it.
Meanwhile, political opponents who claim net zero is an expensive dead end are only too ready to pounce.
It is reported that the Prime Minister has asked to review the details of what some newspapers are calling a "postcode pricing" plan. So is the government really ready to risk the most radical shake-up of the UK electricity market since privatisation 35 years ago? And what will it really mean for our bills?
The Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, is certainly in a fix. His net zero policy is under attack like never before. The Tories have come out against it, green politicians say it isn't delivering for ordinary people, and even Tony Blair has weighed in against it.
Meanwhile Reform UK has identified the policy as a major Achilles heel for the Labour government. "The next election will be fought on two issues, immigration and net stupid zero," says Reform's deputy leader Richard Tice. "And we are going to win."
Poll after poll says cost of living is a much more important for most people, and people often specifically cite concerns about rising energy prices.
Miliband sold his aggressive clean energy policies in part on cutting costs. He said that ensuring 95% of the country's electricity comes from low-carbon sources by 2030 would slash the average electricity bill by £300.
But the potential for renewables to deliver lower costs just isn't coming through to consumers.
Renewables now generate more than half the country's electricity, but because of the limits to how much electricity can be moved around the system, even on windy days some gas generation is almost always needed to top the system up.
And because gas tends to be more expensive, it sets the wholesale price.
Supporters of the government's plan argue that, as long as prices continue to be set at a national level, the hold gas has on the cost of electricity will be hard to break. Less so with regional – or, in the jargon, "zonal" - pricing.
Think of Scotland, blessed with vast wind resources but just 5.5 million people. The argument goes that if prices were set locally, it wouldn't be necessary to pay wind farms to be turned down because there wasn't enough capacity in the cables to carry all the electricity into England.
On a windy day like 3 June, they would have to sell that spare power to local people instead of into a national market. The theory is prices would fall dramatically – on some days Scottish customers might even get their electricity for free.
Other areas with lots of renewable power - such as Yorkshire and the North East, as well as parts of Wales - would stand to benefit too. And, as solar investment increases in Lincolnshire and other parts of the east of England, they could also see prices tumble.
All that cheap power could also transform the economics of industry. Supporters argue that it would attract energy-intensive businesses such as data centres, chemical companies and other manufacturing industries.
In London and much of the south of England, the price of electricity would sometimes be higher than in the windy north. But supporters say some of the hundreds of millions of pounds the system would save could be used to make sure no one pays more than they do now.
And those higher prices could also encourage investors to build new wind farms and solar plants closer to where the demand is. The argument is that would lower prices in the long run and bring another benefit - less electricity would need to be carried around the country, so we would need fewer new pylons, saving everyone money and meaning less clutter in the countryside.
"Zonal pricing would make the energy system as a whole dramatically more efficient, slashing this waste and cutting bills for every family and business in the country," argues Greg Jackson, the CEO of Octopus Energy, one of the biggest energy suppliers in the UK.
Research commissioned by the company estimates the savings could top £55 billion by 2050 - which it claims could knock £50 to £100 a year off the average bill. Octopus points out Sweden made the switch to regional pricing in just 18 months.
The supporters of regional pricing include NESO, Citizens Advice and the head of the energy regulator, Ofgem. Last week a committee of the House of Lords recommended the country should switch to the system.
There are, however, many businesses involved in building and running renewable energy plants that oppose the move.
"We're making billions of pounds of investments in renewable power in the UK every year," says Tom Glover, the UK chair of the giant German power company RWE. "I can't go to my board and say let's take a bet on billions of pounds of investment."
He's worried changing the way energy is priced could undermine contracts and make revenues more uncertain. And he says it risks undermining the government's big push to switch to green energy.
The main cost of wind and solar plants is in the build. It means the price of the energy they produce is very closely tied to the cost of building and, because developers borrow most of the money, that means the interest rates they are charged.
And we are talking a lot of money. The government is expecting power companies to spend £40bn pounds a year over the next five years on renewable projects in the UK.
Glover says even a very small change in interest rates could have dramatic effects on how much renewable infrastructure is built and how much the power from it costs.
"Those additional costs could quickly overwhelm any of the benefits of regional pricing," says Stephen Woodhouse, an economist with the consultancy firm AFRY, which has studied the impact of regional pricing for the power companies.
That would come as already high interest rates have combined with rising prices for steel and other materials to push up the cost of renewables. Plans for a huge wind farm off the coast of Yorkshire were cancelled last month because the developer said it no longer made economic sense.
And there's another consideration, he says. The National Grid, which owns the pylons, substations and cables that move electricity around the country, is already rolling out a huge investment programme – some £60bn over the next five years - to upgrade the system ready for the new world of clean power.
That new infrastructure will mean more capacity to bring electricity from our windy northern coasts down south, and therefore also mean fewer savings from a regional pricing system in the future.
There are other arguments too. Critics warn introducing regional pricing could take years, that energy-intensive businesses like British Steel can't just up sticks and move, and that the system will be unfair because some customers will pay more than others.
But according to Greg Jackson of Octopus, the power companies and their backers just want to protect their profits. "Unsurprisingly, it's the companies that enjoy attractive returns from this absurd system who are lobbying hard to maintain the status quo," he says.
Just Stop Oil was policed to extinction - now the movement has gone deeper underground
Can UK afford to save British Steel – and can it afford not to?
UK taxpayers no longer own NatWest - but 17 years on, are banks safer from collapse?
Yet the power companies say Octopus has a vested interest too. It is the UK's biggest energy supplier with some seven million customers, and owns a sophisticated billing system it licenses to other suppliers, so could gain from changes to the way electricity is priced, they claim.
And the clock is ticking. Whether the government meets its clean power targets will depend on how many new wind farms and solar plants are built.
The companies who will build them say they need certainty around the future of the electricity market, so a decision must be taken soon.
It's expected in the next couple of weeks. Over to you, Mr Miliband.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Data breach victims: Here's how your personal information is sold to criminals
Data breach victims: Here's how your personal information is sold to criminals

Fast Company

time34 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

Data breach victims: Here's how your personal information is sold to criminals

Every year, massive data breaches harm the public. The targets are email service providers, retailers and government agencies that store information about people. Each breach includes sensitive personal information such as credit and debit card numbers, home addresses, and account usernames and passwords from hundreds of thousands—and sometimes millions—of people. When National Public Data, a company that does online background checks, was breached in 2024, criminals gained the names, addresses, dates of birth, and national identification numbers such as Social Security numbers of 170 million people in the U.S., U.K., and Canada. The same year, hackers who targeted Ticketmaster stole the financial information and personal data of more than 560 million customers. As a criminologist who researches cybercrime, I study the ways that hackers and cybercriminals steal and use people's personal information. Understanding the people involved helps us to better recognize the ways that hacking and data breaches are intertwined. In so-called stolen data markets, hackers sell personal information they illegally obtain to others, who then use the data to engage in fraud and theft for profit. The quantity problem Every piece of personal data captured in a data breach —a passport number, Social Security number, or login for a shopping service—has inherent value. Offenders can use the information in different ways. They can assume someone else's identity, make a fraudulent purchase, or steal services such as streaming media or music. The sale of data, also known as carding, references the misuse of stolen credit card numbers or identity details. These illicit data markets began in the mid-1990s through the use of credit card number generators used by hackers. They shared programs that randomly generated credit card numbers and details and then checked to see whether the fake account details matched active cards that could then be used for fraudulent transactions. As more financial services were created and banks allowed customers to access their accounts through the internet, it became easier for hackers and cybercriminals to steal personal information through data breaches and phishing. Phishing involves sending convincing emails or SMS text messages to people to trick them into giving up sensitive information such as logins and passwords, often by clicking a false link that seems legitimate. One of the first phishing schemes targeted America Online users to get their account information to use their internet service at no charge. Selling stolen data online The large amount of information criminals were able to steal from such schemes led to more vendors offering stolen data to others through different online platforms. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, offenders used Internet Relay Chat, or IRC channels, to sell data. IRC was effectively like modern instant messaging systems, letting people communicate in real time through specialized software. Criminals used these channels to sell data and hacking services in an efficient place. In the early 2000s, vendors transitioned to web forums where individuals advertised their services to other users. Forums quickly gained popularity and became successful businesses with vendors selling stolen credit cards, malware, and related goods and services to misuse personal information and enable fraud. One of the more prominent forums from this time was ShadowCrew, which formed in 2002 and operated until being taken down by a joint law enforcement operation in 2004. Their members trafficked more than 1.7 million credit cards in less than three years. Forums continue to be popular, though vendors transitioned to running their own web-based shops on the open internet and dark web, which is an encrypted portion of the web that can be accessed only through specialized browsers like TOR, starting in the early 2010s. These shops have their own web addresses and distinct branding to attract customers, and they work in the same way as other e-commerce stores. More recently, vendors of stolen data have also begun to operate on messaging platforms such as Telegram and Signal to quickly connect with customers. Cybercriminals and customers Many of the people who supply and operate the markets appear to be cybercriminals from Eastern Europe and Russia who steal data and then sell it to others. Markets have also been observed in Vietnam and other parts of the world, though they do not get the same visibility in the global cybersecurity landscape. The customers of stolen data markets may reside anywhere in the world, and their demands for specific data or services may drive data breaches and cybercrime to provide the supply. The goods Stolen data is usually available in individual lots, such as a person's credit or debit card and all the information associated with the account. These pieces are individually priced, with costs differing depending on the type of card, the victim's location and the amount of data available related to the affected account. Vendors frequently offer discounts and promotions to buyers to attract customers and keep them loyal. This is often done with credit or debit cards that are about to expire. Some vendors also offer distinct products such as credit reports, Social Security numbers and login details for different paid services. The price for pieces of information varies. A recent analysis found credit card data sold for $50 on average, while Walmart logins sold for $9. However, the pricing can vary widely across vendors and markets. Illicit payments Vendors typically accept payment through cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin that are difficult for law enforcement to trace. Once payment is received, the vendor releases the data to the customer. Customers take on a great deal of the risk in this market because they cannot go to the police or a market regulator to complain about a fraudulent sale. Vendors may send customers dead accounts that are unable to be used or give no data at all. Such scams are common in a market where buyers can depend only on signals of vendor trust to increase the odds that the data they purchase will be delivered, and if it is, that it pays off. If the data they buy is functional, they can use it to make fraudulent purchases or financial transactions for profit. The rate of return can be exceptional. An offender who buys 100 cards for $500 can recoup costs if only 20 of those cards are active and can be used to make an average purchase of $30. The result is that data breaches are likely to continue as long as there is demand for illicit, profitable data.

Rolls-Royce to build Britain's first mini nuclear reactors
Rolls-Royce to build Britain's first mini nuclear reactors

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Rolls-Royce to build Britain's first mini nuclear reactors

Rolls-Royce will build the country's first mini nuclear power plants as part of a multibillion-pound effort to make Britain a world leader in the technology. The Derby-based engineering giant was on Tuesday confirmed as the sole winner of a design competition, beating rivals GE-Hitachi and Holtec International following a two-year selection process. It will now work with the Government on a programme to initially build three the first small modular reactors (SMRs) by the 2030s, with £2.5bn of funding pledged through 2029 and billions more expected beyond that once construction begins. Ministers said the decision showed they were 'backing Britain', with the majority of the supply chain expected to be based domestically. As a 'preferred' bidder, Rolls will now hold talks to negotiate a final contract with the Government. A location has yet to be announced but sites including Wylfa, in Anglesey, and Oldbury-on-Severn, in Gloucestershire, are among those being considered. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, said the scheme would boost energy security and create thousands of jobs, as part of a new 'golden age of nuclear' that has also seen the Government pledge £14bn of new funding to the construction of Sizewell C. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, added: 'The UK is back where it belongs, taking the lead in the technologies of tomorrow with Rolls-Royce SMR as the preferred partner for this journey. 'We're backing Britain with Great British Energy - Nuclear's ambition to ensure 70pc of supply chain products are British built, delivering our plan for change through more jobs and putting more money in people's pockets.' SMRs would in theory be faster to build than larger nuclear plants, such as Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, and come with smaller price tags – although they remain unproven commercially. Tuesday's announcement also confirmed cutbacks to the SMR programme, which The Telegraph previously revealed were being considered. The Government had earlier suggested that two or as many as three SMR manufacturers would be chosen to take designs forward, with nuclear industry insiders saying this would boost competition and ensure a 'backup' was available should the main winner run into trouble. But with the Treasury under pressure to find billions of pounds for other priorities such as the NHS and police forces, the scale of the programme now appears to have been trimmed back. Ministers also confirmed that Great British Nuclear, the quango set up to manage the new mini-nuclear programme, would be absorbed into Mr Miliband's publicly owned Great British Energy. Tufan Erginbilgic, chief executive of Rolls-Royce, said: 'This is a very significant milestone for our business. 'It is a vote of confidence in our unique nuclear capabilities, which will be recognised by governments around the world.' Rolls has also been selected by the Czech government to build some of Europe's first SMRs in a joint venture with state energy firm CEZ. The decision brings to a close a process that was first promised by George Osborne, the former chancellor, in 2015 but did not begin until 2023 under the previous Conservative government. Rolls was widely viewed as the frontrunner in the process and had already been awarded £210m of taxpayer support in 2021 towards the development costs of its SMR technology. But in the past year, ministers have faced calls from Rolls boss Erginbilgic to push forward more quickly to ensure Britain retains 'first mover advantage'. The global SMR market is projected to be worth up to £500bn by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. Rolls is vying against companies including Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi to secure customers and set up supply chains. The company has long supplied the pressurised water reactors that power Royal Navy submarines but has more recently sought to develop SMRs and even smaller 'micro reactors' for commercial use as well. Its SMRs would be constructed from 'modules' that are built in factories and then transported to sites for assembly. The idea is meant to ensure that the plants can be produced efficiently at scale and more quickly than larger nuclear projects. As part of the SMR competition, the Government asked companies to explain how they would bring down costs over time. In the longer run, it is also hoped that the smaller price tags of SMRs will ensure they are more attractive to private investors, which have long viewed bigger plants as too expensive and risky to back without government support. Major technology companies including Google, Amazon and Facebook owner Meta are investing in potential SMR technologies, amid suggestions they could eventually be used to supply power-hungry data centres needed to develop artificial intelligence. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten

Marks & Spencer reopens website after major cyber attack
Marks & Spencer reopens website after major cyber attack

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Marks & Spencer reopens website after major cyber attack

Marks & Spencer has reopened its website to customers after it was forced to halt internet orders in April following a damaging cyber attack. The retail giant said shoppers are now able to buy a selection of its best-selling fashion ranges and new products for home delivery to England, Scotland and Wales. In a statement published on social media, M&S managing director of clothing, home and beauty John Lyttle said: 'More of our fashion, home and beauty products will be added every day, and we will resume deliveries to Northern Ireland and Click and Collect in the coming weeks.' It followed a major cyber attack in April that saw the group face heavy disruption. M&S halted orders on its website over the Easter weekend, and was also left with some empty shelves after being targeted by hackers. Customer personal data – which could have included names, email addresses, postal addresses and dates of birth – was also taken by hackers in the attack. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

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