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

Yahoo4 days 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

We will do everything we can to save Alexander Dennis jobs, vows Swinney
We will do everything we can to save Alexander Dennis jobs, vows Swinney

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

We will do everything we can to save Alexander Dennis jobs, vows Swinney

The Scottish Government will do 'everything we can' to support jobs at bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis, the First Minister has said. The company announced on Wednesday it is proposing to consolidate its UK operations at a single site in Scarborough, North Yorkshire. The decision puts 400 jobs at risk at its facility in Falkirk in another blow to the Forth Valley, which has already seen more than 400 jobs go at the Grangemouth refinery this year. Speaking at First Minister's Questions on Thursday, John Swinney said he is 'deeply concerned'. He told the chamber: 'This issue has been occupying a great deal of the focus and the attention of the Deputy First Minister and I and the UK Government ministers since we became aware of the situation over the last few weeks, and then ultimately to the decision that was announced yesterday.' He said his Government has 'supported' the manufacturer. But Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar accused Holyrood ministers of overlooking Scottish industry in favour of ordering buses from China, while pointing to the order from Alexander Dennis of around 160 vehicles by the publicly-owned network in Greater Manchester. In Scotland, public service buses are procured by private operators, who then run them on routes across the country. Mr Swinney said state aid regulations – in the form of the UK-wide Subsidy Control Act – prevent the Government from directly procuring from a single supplier like Alexander Dennis. He quoted a joint letter from the UK and Scottish governments, which pledged to 'work closely with Alexander Dennis at this challenging time'. He added: 'That's us indicating that we're keen to do everything we can to find a way through the Subsidy Control Act provisions, so the Government can continue to operate within the law, which we must do, but also, we can support manufacturing in Scotland, which is my priority.' Speaking to journalists after First Minister's Questions, Mr Swinney said the possibility of a furlough scheme for staff impacted by the announcement – as suggested by Scottish Secretary Ian Murray on Wednesday – is on the table. In the chamber, Mr Sarwar said: 'If John Swinney can't figure out a way to order buses in Scotland, I suggest he picks up the phone to (Greater Manchester Mayor) Andy Burnham and see how he managed to do it. 'Almost five times as many bus orders from Manchester.' Mr Sarwar's claim stems from the second phase of the Scottish Government's green bus initiative ScotZEB, which ordered 44 buses from Alexander Dennis. However, according to a press release from the time, 137 buses were ordered from the firm in the first phase, amounting to a total of 181. In a statement, Mr Burnham – who has visited the Falkirk site – said: 'Our iconic Bee Network buses are a bit of Scotland right here in Greater Manchester. 'We have over 160 Alexander Dennis buses criss-crossing our city-region every day – connecting our communities to opportunity. 'If Greater Manchester can invest in world-class Scottish bus manufacturing, then why can't the SNP Scottish Government?' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

As Pension Funds Buy Bitcoin, A New Path In Its History Is Traced
As Pension Funds Buy Bitcoin, A New Path In Its History Is Traced

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

As Pension Funds Buy Bitcoin, A New Path In Its History Is Traced

We've seen waves of big institutional players adopt Bitcoin - even traditionally conservative players. The talk of the town has been nation-state adoption of Bitcoin, from El Salvador's experiment with Bitcoin as legal tender to recent actions in the United States with the new Administration. Yet pension funds are inching in as well. A reflection of this has been the small but growing number of pension funds that are adopting Bitcoin - a unique phenomenon that marks a unique path in Bitcoin's evolution that has remained understudied - for the moment. The state of Wisconsin's pension fund has adopted Bitcoin through investment in spot Bitcoin ETFs. An unnamed UK pension scheme has made a 3% allocation to Bitcoin working with Cartwright. The State of Michigan Retirement System has made a multi-million dollar investment in Bitcoin ETFs. And while it's small steps at the beginning, as more institutions gather Bitcoin, this is a promising path forward for adoption. Much of the background research and points come out of a conversation with two sources who have vast experience with pension fund adoption - Sam Roberts of Cartwright, which has advised a UK-based pension fund to allocate 3% towards Bitcoin, and Dom Bei of Proof of Workforce which has helped various unions save holdings in Bitcoin. Pension funds aren't just a new player - they are a different type of player - marking a new evolution for Bitcoin as it matures into the gold standard for digital money. For players in the space, especially pension funds, lasting time horizons are essential. They can't just pull their funds out willy-nilly - they need to be invested in something for at least ten years - and sometimes longer. Pension funds see a difference between Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies - a bias that will persist in both legal systems, in the eyes of nation-states, and institutional players with very long time horizons - such as sovereign wealth funds. Pension funds see Bitcoin as the only option in a crowded field - with other cryptocurrencies going extinct fast compared to Bitcoin. When pension funds evaluate Bitcoin, they must remember that it's like any other asset out there - and that its risk/reward profile stands out to carry the day. As Sam from Cartwright points out, the trick is to get pension trustees to look beyond the polarizing debate and simply counsel to evaluate Bitcoin on its merits and the numbers. If you already believe in the staying power of Bitcoin, then once you take a look at the numbers, Bitcoin stands out as the best-performing financial asset of the last decade. Once you anchor to the math and escape the narrative, Bitcoin paradoxically looks better to institutional players like pension funds. Right now, the winning formula for convincing pension funds is starting (and ending) with Bitcoin in a small percent of their allocation - say in the low single digits towards 1-3%. This smaller allocation allows pension funds not to worry about the short-term volatility of Bitcoin and look more towards the long-term horizon. Even a small allocation can produce outsize returns - enough to justify dipping in. This line of reasoning was part of the reason how Cartwright got a UK pension scheme to allocate 3% to Bitcoin. While most pensions are interested in Bitcoin as a store of value (echoing what's happening in cities and states around the world that want to hold Bitcoin on their reserves), small steps are being taken to explore Bitcoin's use as a medium of exchange - for example, payroll services. While store of value is the more obvious case to push forward, it's clear that there's room for pension funds to experiment with Bitcoin beyond just holding it on their balance sheets - with experiments towards Bitcoin salaries among top Bitcoin companies. It's not just regular pension funds - but also pension funds for blue-collar workers that are looking in. There is a broad appeal to saving beyond just general pension funds. Dom Bei has, for example, onboarded several firefighter unions to start investing in Bitcoin. This is a critical step forward even though it's one thing to get a pension fund in and another to get a union. As he puts it: 'Bitcoin adoption among U.S. pension funds remains low, with few holding it, while unions across public and private sectors increasingly add Bitcoin to their balance sheets. Despite their structural differences, unions and pension funds share a core ethos: advocating for workers' present and future. Both should approach Bitcoin similarly—minimizing risk while learning about a tool born from a financial crisis that devastated workers. As a top 10 global asset by market cap, Bitcoin demands exploration by fund managers and union leaders as a network, financial tool, and store of value for wage-earners.' --- Pension funds are traditionally seen as arch-conservative in their investment choices. The fact that a few are dipping their toes into Bitcoin (and Bitcoin only) is worth examining - tracing a new path for Bitcoin as it continues to march ahead of its crypto competitors.

‘Lack of liquidity' the key factor in decline of the LSE
‘Lack of liquidity' the key factor in decline of the LSE

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

‘Lack of liquidity' the key factor in decline of the LSE

A lack of liquidity due to a relatively low appetite for investment in the UK is the main factor behind the decline of the London Stock Exchange (LSE), according to a commercial growth expert. Speaking on an episode of GlobalData's Instant Insights podcast, Carrie Osman, founder and CEO of growth consultancy Cruxy, suggested there are a range of factors behind companies choosing to list elsewhere or delisting, including some structural, but that, in her view, liquidity is the main issue. 'It doesn't have the liquidity, it doesn't have the buoyancy, and it doesn't, quite frankly, attract the most innovative technologies to list in London because of the fact that there doesn't seem to be the appetite from an investment pool to provide the liquidity that obviously some of these founders or private equity firms are looking for,' Osman said. 'Ultimately, you're looking for people to back your concept or idea, and you're looking for them to believe in that with their money to buy shares in your company and say, 'Yes, I believe that you're going to make me a lot of money. Let's go long here.' I was looking at some facts, and I thought it's very interesting that, for example, in the UK, about 23% of adults have stocks and shares. When we compare that to the US, it's 62%.' Osman was speaking following the announcement that Qualcomm has acquired UK-based semiconductor company Alphawave Semi, resulting in another high-profile departure from the LSE. She pointed to that deal as just one example of the challenges facing the LSE but noted that it wasn't just the UK exchange facing such issues. 'When you look at Europe as a whole, I think [there are] 183 European listings, and only about 15% of those are listed in their home turf,' she said. 'So, I think it probably is kind of far and wide when you look at Europe as a whole.' Osman believes the lesser culture for investing in the UK compared to the US – where individuals are exposed to investing through the 401(k) retirement savings plan – is limiting the potential of the LSE. 'How could you encourage people to kind of play an active role in the market?' she said. 'Maybe teach them about the market, teach them about stocks, teach them about trading. And then, of course, maybe there are ways that we could use tax incentives to encourage either companies or, of course, employees to be able to feel like they can invest in the markets without feeling like it's so much of a risk.' 'It always feels like it's less of a risk to just stick your money in an ISA and fingers crossed the Bank of England doesn't reduce the rate too much. That was how I was brought up. I think it would be amazing to think that there's a way to encourage more slight risk taking but with a bit of a support layer there so that people feel they can invest in our country and invest in some of our great assets.' Osman also pointed to the Private Intermittent Securities and Capital Exchange System (PISCES) as a means of encouraging investment. Per the UK's Financial Conduct Authority, 'PISCES is a new type of private stock market that will give investors more opportunities to buy stakes in growing companies.' 'If I own shares in a company, I can trade those shares without listing it publicly, so that there'll be these kind of trading windows,' Osman explained. 'So, I can trade those shares, and an asset manager can buy them all. But the thing that concerns me about that is that it's only secondaries, so it's only certain people they decide can do that, who are professional investors, whatever that means. 'And who decides the price? Is this just regulation? All the positive consequences, but it ends up with a lot of regulation on regulation, and it ends up with a lot of complexity? I'm worried that that could end up being a lot of positive intent, but maybe it doesn't lead to that outcome of driving liquidity that they would hope.' "'Lack of liquidity' the key factor in decline of the LSE" was originally created and published by Investment Monitor, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

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