logo
GB Energy needs full £8.3bn of funding or it will disappoint, government told

GB Energy needs full £8.3bn of funding or it will disappoint, government told

The Guardian19-03-2025

The government risks 'disappointing voters' hoping for cheaper energy bills in the next decade if it cuts the £8.3bn budget for GB Energy, a thinktank has warned.
Researchers at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found that the publicly owned energy company – set up by Labour to drive renewable energy and cut household bills – will need to be fully funded if it hopes to build enough clean energy projects to meet 5% of the country's electricity needs by the 2030s.
The left-leaning thinktank added that GB Energy will need to amass a portfolio of clean power more than twice the capacity of the world's largest offshore windfarm before it begins to have a 'systemic impact' on the UK energy system.
It added that creating a portfolio of this size would be 'unlikely' before 2030, in a blow to the government's plan to cut £300 a year from bills by the end of the decade by making the UK a clean energy 'superpower'.
But GB Energy could still make a difference to the energy costs faced by specific groups by building projects for local communities or organisations, or by setting up supply contracts directly with energy users, the report said.
The company held its first board meeting at its Aberdeen headquarters this week, chaired by the energy industry veteran Juergen Maier. He said the team was 'already engaging with industry on exciting investment opportunities so we can hit the ground running once Great British Energy is fully established' later this month.
The IPPR's warning was published after reports emerged that the Treasury was considering a cut to the £8.3bn of taxpayer money promised to GB Energy over the five-year parliament in its spending review in June.
Simone Gasperin, one of the authors of the IPPR report, said that for GB Energy to succeed as a publicly owned operating company the government 'must take the most ambitious approach possible, including sticking to its original plan to invest £8.3bn'.
'It must ensure that GB Energy can immediately focus on direct investment in fully owned clean energy projects, delivering real benefits to industrial and domestic consumers, and seeking to establish itself as a major player within the entire UK electricity sector,' Gasperin said.
GB Energy emerged as one of Labour's most high-profile campaign pledges alongside its promise to cut energy bills by £300 a year by creating a virtually zero carbon electricity system by 2030.
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
Last month, Starmer reiterated his commitment to the £300 cut and said he wanted 'bills to be low for a prolonged period of time'.
But an industry body, Energy UK, has warned that, while the government's plans could 'ensure lower energy bills in the next decade', the effect will not be felt by 2030, and further plans to help struggling households should be put in place.
A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: 'Backed by £8.3bn, Great British Energy will own, manage and operate new projects, to help replace Britain's dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets with clean, homegrown power.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US urges UK to U-turn on Israeli sanctions
US urges UK to U-turn on Israeli sanctions

Spectator

time31 minutes ago

  • Spectator

US urges UK to U-turn on Israeli sanctions

As if the Labour government didn't have enough on its plate with Rachel Reeves's spending review to be announced at midday, it is also facing pressure from the US over sanctions imposed on two Israeli cabinet ministers. Late last night, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that the travel ban and asset freezes imposed on security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich 'Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said that the asset freezes and travel bans on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war'. Rubio hasn't just taken aim at the UK – President Donald Trump's man has also urged Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway to row back on their sanctions, while Israel has slammed yesterday's sanctions as 'outrageous'. The move by the UK and allied countries came after remarks made by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich were deemed to have 'incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights' by Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

Reform and SNP are two sides of the same coin
Reform and SNP are two sides of the same coin

Scotsman

timean hour ago

  • Scotsman

Reform and SNP are two sides of the same coin

PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Like most political animals, I have always enjoyed the drama of by-elections. Whilst seldom making a difference to who actually governs us in the short-term, they can be clear indicators of the mood music amongst the public towards parties vying for power, particularly when the next national election is not so far away. That said, I didn't stay up for the result in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election last week, not expecting much in the way of drama. My expectation was that there would be a fairly comfortable SNP victory, with the only real interest being whether Reform would finish third or manage to beat Labour into second place. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I woke up in the morning to a WhatsApp message from a colleague expressing surprise at the outcome, and when I checked the numbers I had to share that sentiment. Few saw the Labour candidate Davy Russell's victory coming, and it is all the more to his credit, and that of his campaign team, that they were able to pull off a quite dramatic victory against the odds. So congratulations are due first of all to Labour in delivering a result which undoubtedly is a boost to Anas Sarwar. Having been written off by the pundits, and with a candidate widely ridiculed for his refusal to participate in TV debates, it demonstrated the importance of a strong, local narrative in winning votes. The Scottish Conservatives had an equally strong local candidate in Cllr Richard Nelson from Larkhall who fought an energetic campaign albeit one we knew never had any realistic prospect of victory. Fourth place was always the best place we could hope for in this seat, as our voters were squeezed to vote tactically either for Labour or for Reform to beat the SNP. On the doorstep we met loyal Conservative voters who told us that they would be using this by-election to 'send a message' to the SNP by voting tactically for whoever they thought was best placed to defeat them, but at next year's Holyrood election would be back voting for us again. That said, we know there is work to be done in presenting a compelling message to maximise our vote for Holyrood in 2026. The real losers on the night were, of course, the SNP. All the polls suggested that this is a seat that they would hold, and the party poured in resources, with numerous visits by leadership figures from the First Minister John Swinney downwards. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP strategy appeared politically clever, if essentially dishonest, in attempting to portray the contest as a two-horse race between them and Reform. This was designed to squeeze Labour voters, in particular, into voting SNP as the lesser of two evils. It backfired spectacularly. The Reform vote was indeed substantial, but if we analyse the figures, it seems that Reform's gains were not so much at the expense of Labour, or even the Conservatives. The 26 per cent of the vote achieved by Reform, at a time when Labour's vote share hardly moved, can only be explained by looking at the 17 per cent drop in the SNP vote. There was a direct transfer from one party to another. Perhaps this should not surprise us. Both SNP and Reform are essentially parties of protest, who have spent years pointing the blame elsewhere for the country's troubles – in the case of Reform, to the EU and immigrants, and in the case of the SNP, to Westminster governments. I can well remember at a previous election meeting on a doorstep in Perthshire one voter who we had previously identified as a regular Conservative supporter, who came out red-faced and angry to lambast me for the failings of the Tory government. 'You've let me down', he shouted, 'letting far too many immigrants in. That's it, I've had it with you lot. From now on I'm voting SNP'. It was an encounter indicative of a particular type of individual who rages at the world around them. These will be some of the people who were motivated to vote for independence in 2014 on the basis that anything must be better than what we currently have. And it will be some of the same people who were amongst the 2 in 5 Scots who voted for Brexit in 2016. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad For years the SNP have played the part of a populist party, simultaneously in government and in opposition, blaming all Scotland's ills not on their own failings but on big, bad Westminster. Now we have the new entrants on the scene in Reform, singing a different song to the same tune. To change the metaphor, the two Parties are essentially opposite sides of the same coin. They are parties who seek not to find solutions to the complex issues that face our country, but rather resort to simplistic slogans appealing to the basest level. Little wonder, then, that voters have little difficulty in switching between the two. Swinney's claim that Reform's values are antithetical to Scotland now look ridiculous, when his Party was not only defeated in Hamilton, but finished a mere 869 votes ahead of Farage's. Scottish exceptionalism has never had such a rude awakening. Over the last 18 years, the SNP have demonstrated how far populist politics can take you. Now, the rise of Reform shows they have a significant competitor for that segment of the population who are content to blame others for the country's woes. Fortunately, there is an alternative: the serious parties prepared to do the heavy lifting in proposing credible solutions to fix the problems in our society.

Householders who racially abuse police at home to face prosecution
Householders who racially abuse police at home to face prosecution

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Householders who racially abuse police at home to face prosecution

People who racially abuse police making house calls will be prosecuted under plans to close a legal loophole. Offenders will face up to two years in jail if they are found guilty of directing religious or racial abuse at emergency service workers who enter their homes. The Public Order Act of 1986 made it illegal to racially or religiously abuse anyone in public but did not cover behaviour within a private home. The legislation was designed to let police keep public spaces free from abuse but not overstep into conversations held in private. But the Home Office said this left police and other emergency workers vulnerable and unprotected from racial and religious harassment during house calls, and meant they could not bring perpetrators to account. Home Office officials said ministers had decided to close the loophole because of an increase in reports of emergency workers being abused for their race or religion while in private homes. 'They should not have to tolerate abuse' A Home Office spokesman said: 'By closing the loophole in the Public Order Act 1986, the Government is making clear that racially or religiously motivated abuse and threats towards our emergency workers will never be tolerated, regardless of where it takes place.' Dame Diana Johnson, the policing minister, said: 'Our emergency workers put themselves in harm's way every day to keep us safe and they should never have to tolerate abuse due to their race or religion while simply doing their job. 'By closing this loophole, we're sending a clear message that racial and religious abuse directed towards those who serve our communities will not be tolerated.' The changes will be introduced through amendments to Labour's Crime and Policing Bill, which will also extend police powers to enter homes to seize knives and mobile phones. At present, the law only allows officers to seize blades that are on the banned list, such as 'zombie' knives and machetes, and ministers said police were hamstrung when they raided suspects' homes. They are not allowed to take weapons such as kitchen knives, which are not on the list, even if they suspect they will be used in crimes. Police will also be able to enter homes and search for stolen mobile phones without a warrant, if the devices have been electronically tracked to that location. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said the law change would enable emergency workers to save lives free from violence or intimidation. 'Anyone who violates this core principle brings shame on themselves and will feel the full force of the law, wherever they are,' he said. 'I will not stand any health worker being subjected to abuse and take a zero-tolerance approach, and these new measures will crack down on perpetrators.'

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