Energy bills swollen by Scottish windfarm switch off costs
However, critics focused on the revelation that the Westminster administration planned to use £2.5bn allocated to the fledgling Great British Energy operation to fund work on a new generation of small modular nuclear reactors.
SNP supporters slammed the move which they claimed would leave a big hole in the £8.3bn budget that GB Energy had promised would be used to support the development of technologies such as floating offshore wind and tidal energy.
Keir Starmer decided to put the official headquarters of GB Energy in Aberdeen to mollify critics of his cabinet's decision to curb oil and gas activity.
But the SNP Government has opposed North Sea field developments that could create thousands of jobs.
It has pinned its hopes on the expansion of wind power, which acting climate change minister Alasdair Allan claimed recently could create thousands of high-quality jobs in support of a just transition from dependence on oil and gas. The number of renewables jobs created in Scotland, however, has fallen below expectations for years.
READ MORE: Just transition furore reignited as SNP Government flounders
Mr Allan put the onus on the UK Government to help accelerate windfarm development in Scotland by improving the support provided for developers under the flagship Contracts for Difference programme.
Energy secretary Ed Miliband has held out the prospect that the budget for the forthcoming CfD allocation round will be much bigger than the £1.6bn set for the last one.
The costs will be added to the bills of householders regardless of their income.
But figures from the body that regulates the national energy system show bill payers have reason to be concerned about the wisdom of accelerating a programme that imposes costs on them that many can't afford.
The National Energy System Operator revealed that the size of the bill it has to pay to deal with supply issues stemming from the fact that output from renewables such as windfarms is intermittent soared to £2.7bn in the latest year from £2.5bn in the preceding period.
The balancing payments include amounts that NESO pays to compensate windfarm operators that are asked to constrain generation when there is insufficient demand. They also include payments made to operators of gas fired power stations to increase output when there is not enough wind power to meet energy requirements.
READ MORE: Israeli-owned firm takes control of UK's biggest gas field
NESO said the increase was driven by a rise in constraint costs and made clear that this was largely due to the fact that so much windfarm capacity has been added in Scotland although demand is much higher south of the border.
'Whilst payments to generators are distributed throughout the country the cause of cost is concentrated in Scotland,' it said.
The organisation underlined the absurdity of the situation we find ourselves in after rushing to develop windfarms without ensuring the required infrastructure was in place to transport the power produced to where it is needed or to store it.
The Seagreen windfarm off the Angus coast became fully operational in 2023 (Image: SSE)
Noting that wind curtailment is currently a major driver of balancing costs, NESO said: 'This is because a large proportion of wind capacity in GB is connected in Scotland, which at present is a constrained region of the network.
'This means that when wind generation is high we must take actions to turn down wind output and turn on replacement energy in unconstrained regions to keep the system balanced.'
The NESO report emphasises that the costs resulting from this situation fall on householders.
In 2024/25 balancing charges added around £3 a month to a typical domestic electricity bill.
That may not sound much but household bills are also inflated by other charges such as those related to CfDs and the Climate Change Levy.
NESO's analysis indicates that developing more windfarms will make things worse for the time being.
It warned: 'Balancing costs are expected to rise in the short term, reaching a peak of ~£8bn in 2030.'
Part of the solution will involve a massive expansion of electricity transportation networks in the face of potential opposition from locals in areas affected and of storage facilities. However, energy giants such as SSE and Drax have made clear they will only make the hefty investment required to develop hydro storage facilities if the UK Government provides enough support for revenues to ensure they can generate strong returns.
READ MORE: Scottish hydropower hopes fade amid threats to bumper projects
This all means that power generation assets that can ensure the country can keep the lights on irrespective of weather conditions will be required for years.
The case for SSE to be allowed to develop a new gas fired power station at Peterhead has been strengthened after the UK Government agreed to provide £200m initial development funding for the Acorn carbon capture scheme. This will take emissions from the plant for storage in depleted reservoirs in the North Sea.
Friends of the Earth Scotland insists the Peterhead plant would be a climate disaster and has berated the Scottish Government for failing to properly interrogate SSE's assurances about related emissions.
The organisation is bitterly opposed to plans for the Scottish carbon capture cluster which it reckons could be used to excuse continued production of oil and gas.
The SNP Government, however, has spent years pressing UK ministers to fund the Scottish cluster, which could cost around £12bn to develop in full.
Scottish Gas owner Centrica recently underlined the scale of expected demand for gas by agreeing a £20 billion deal to secure supplies from Norway until 2035.
That deal may have been timely as oil and gas prices have soared in the wake of Israel launching attacks on Iran last week.
READ MORE: SNP Government oil hypocrisy shocking amid Scottish jobs cull
Against that backdrop it makes sense for the UK to maximise production of its own oil and gas.
The case for investing in nuclear plants that can provide baseload power is also reinforced by concerns about the UK's dependence on imports of oil and gas.
Nuclear plants take years to develop but could remain operational for decades. Add in the fact that work on a plant could create thousands of construction jobs and many more in the supply chain and it is little wonder the SNP Government is under pressure from trades unions to abandon its opposition to the development of nuclear power stations in Scotland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump abandons historic UK-US trade deal just as it's agreed
Donald Trump accidentally dropped the historic US-UK trade deal while announcing it had officially been signed after holding crunch talks with Sir Keir Starmer at the G7 summit. The US President left the Prime Minister scrambling to round-up the crucial papers as the two leaders attempted to put on a united front and show the world the transatlantic deal was 'done'. But as Trump attempted to open a black folder with the signed agreement inside, several papers spilled out on to the floor, prompting Starmer to quickly bend down and intervene. 'Oops sorry about that,' the president said, before Starmer tried to brush off the gaffe by quipping: 'It's a very important document.' Stood alongside Starmer, the US President then said 'We signed it and it's done', before mistakenly announcing the deal was with the European Union , rather than the UK. He added: 'It's a fair deal for both. It'll produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income.' The Prime Minister said the completed deal 'implements on car tariffs and aerospace', and described the agreement as a 'sign of strength' between Britain and America, with Trump saying it's 'fair' for both nations. He said: 'Donald, thank you very much. This now implements on car tariffs and aerospace. A really important agreement. And so this is a very good day for both of our countries, a real sign of strength.' Starmer said the proclamation would implement agreements reached on automotive tariffs and aerospace, without providing any details. Under the terms of the deal, first announced in the White House in early May, UK carmakers will be hit by a 10 per cent rate when selling vehicles to the US rather than 25. In return, Britain is lifting tariffs on American companies' shipments of products such as beef and ethanol. The Department for Business and Trade also said the US has committed to removing tariffs on UK aerospace goods such as engines and aircraft parts. However, there was a signal from Trump that agreement about tariffs on British steel exports to the US could take longer to finalise. Asked if steel tariffs would be set to 0 per cent for the UK, the US President replied: 'We're gonna let you have that information in little while.' In recent months, the UK has held a series of engagements aimed at securing a reduction in the tariffs Mr Trump imposed on Britain and the rest of the world on April 2. Along with 10 per cent tariffs on all British goods, the president imposed 25 per cent levies on cars and steel. He later increased the tariff on steel to 50 per cent, but gave the UK a reprieve, keeping its rate at 25 per cent until at least July 9. Under the broad terms of last month's agreement, the US will implement quotas that will effectively eliminate the tariff on British steel and reduce the tariff on UK vehicles to 10 per cent. But it did not immediately take effect, leaving British businesses uncertain about whether the UK could be exposed to any surprise hikes from Trump. When asked, Trump did say that the UK was 'very well protected' when questioned over whether Britain would be protected from any future tariffs. Asked whether he could guarantee the country would be protected from any further levies, the US president said: 'The UK is very well protected, you know why? Because I like them.' Trump added that Starmer had done 'what other people haven't been able to do' in securing a deal with the US, saying their relationship with Britain was 'just fantastic'. The US president told reporters: 'The Prime Minister's done a great job, I want to just tell that to the people of the United Kingdom. 'He's done what other people. They've been talking about this deal for six years. and he's done what they haven't been able to do.' Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: 'We agreed this deal with the US to ensure jobs and livelihoods in some of our most vital sectors were protected, and since then we have been focused on delivering those benefits to businesses.' 'Bringing trade deals into force can take several months, yet we are delivering on the first set of agreements in a matter of weeks. And we won't stop there.' Before their one-on-one talks, Sir Keir found himself sat next to Mr Trump during a working session at his first G7 summit as Prime Minister.
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Farmers call for UK animal welfare rules to be upheld in Gulf states deal
A trade deal with Gulf states could severely undermine British farmers by allowing the importation of low-welfare meat, the National Farmers' Union has said in a letter to the prime minister. The UK is close to signing a £1.6bn trade agreement with Gulf states – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – amid deep dissatisfaction from farming and animal welfare groups over an expected deal for food imports. Human rights groups have also attacked the proposed deal for making no concrete provisions on workers' rights, modern slavery or the environment. Last week, the business secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, said there would be 'chapters in that agreement' on human rights that were not legally binding. 'You don't have that in trade deals, but it's important you have that ethos and that approach reflected,' he said. Farmers groups have told the prime minister, Keir Starmer, that the deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council would go against a commitment he made at the NFU conference to protect high welfare standards, saying that the way most poultry is produced in Gulf states would be illegal in the UK. The Guardian has previously reported that the deal included uncapped access to the UK's poultry market for chicken meat if imports meet UK hygiene standards. However, meeting these checks does not mean meeting UK animal welfare standards. The NFU president, Tom Bradshaw, said: 'Balanced and mutually beneficial trade deals can provide a real economic boost, including for farm businesses. A modern trade deal with the GCC, if fair and balanced, could offer huge potential for agricultural exporters. 'But, as always, this balance depends on the government upholding its commitments to not allow greater market access for food imports which have been produced in ways that are illegal here. This would undermine Britain's reputation for high animal welfare standards that our producers deliver, and consumers value and rightly expect.' He said the trading bloc 'only seems to have basic welfare provisions, which fall well short of the robust species-specific legislation in place in the UK'. 'It's vital the government takes the same balanced approach it took with the recent India and US trade agreements. This is the next test to see if the government will stand strong and protect the standards our country demands and values,' he added. Farmers have minimum standards to reach in terms of space for birds to live in, and there is mandatory pre-slaughter stunning in most cases. In the six Gulf countries involved in the deal, poultry must be slaughtered according to halal principles, though stunning is sometimes used. Poultry is often raised in intensive indoor systems, especially given the region's harsh heat. The UK has some of the strictest standards for chicken space in the world. Poultry farmers must give their flock a minimum of 750 sq cm of space per bird, and 600 sq cm must be usable. The deal, led by the trade minister, Douglas Alexander, is likely to be particularly beneficial for the car industry and financial services, though estimates suggest a free trade agreement would be worth less than 1% of GDP by 2035. Trade with the six-member bloc is worth about £59bn a year, according to UK government estimates, as the UK's seventh-largest export market, with a trade deal expected to increase trade by about 16%.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump finally signed a UK-US trade deal - but Starmer still faces steel tariffs race
President Trump brandished his trade deal with the UK at the G7 meeting in Canada, announcing he had finally signed it after weeks of wrangling - then promptly dropped it on the ground. Keir Starmer was quick to respond to the US president's clumsiness, bending down to pick up the precious agreement, set to protect auto industry jobs in Britain. The whole thing could be seen as a metaphor for how the Republican sees these kinds of deals - and continues to treat them. Because there is a sting in the tail to what the two men signed in Alberta. Whopping tariffs of 25 per cent remain on British steel - one of the industries that can least afford them. And the prime minister now faces a race against time to try to get rid of them, before they cripple an already beleaguered industry. The US president sent shockwaves through the global economy when he announced his steel tariffs – and then, a few weeks ago, plans to double them. The UK-US trade deal unveiled with much fanfare in April should have exempted Britain from steel tariffs altogether – but there was one problem, it had yet to be implemented. And it still has not. Trump's signature means the deal can now go through parliaments on either side of the Atlantic, but that process will still take days. It was not supposed to be like this. When it was first unveiled Trump hailed the trade agreement with the UK as a 'great deal for both countries', while the prime minister said the move would 'boost British businesses and save thousands of British jobs' and deliver on his promises to protect carmakers and, crucially, save the UK's steel industry. Under its terms, levies on steel and aluminium were to be reduced to zero. However, a general 10 per cent tariff for other goods would remain and Britain agreed to scrap its tariff on ethanol coming into the UK from the US. At the time the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, said the UK had been 'shafted' as she contrasted the amount UK business would have to pay with their costs before Trump came to power. Earlier this year, MPs were forced to hold a Saturday sitting to approve emergency plans to save British Steel 's Scunthorpe blast furnaces by taking control away from its Chinese owners. Although the new law stopped short of nationalisation, the government conceded it was "likely" British Steel would have to be taken into public ownership as Sir Keir warned the UK's economic and national security was "on the line". At the time, he said his government was 'turning the page on a decade of decline, where our manufacturing heartlands were hollowed out by the previous government. Our industry is the pride of our history – and I want it to be our future too." The British steel industry described it as a 'body blow' to wake up a few weeks ago and discover that Trump had announced overnight plans to universally double steel tariffs, from 25 to 50 per cent. That appears to have fallen again, to 25 per cent, still an astronomical sum. The calculation at the G7 has been to use a meeting with the president to get most of the way there on the trade deal. To give industries like the car sector the certainty they, and their workers, badly need. And sort out the rest later. But the beleaguered British steel industry will be hoping they get the same kind of certainty very soon indeed.
