Skip to main content

UK policy changes: windfalls and renewables

It’s been a wild year politically in the UK. After a period when windfall taxes were resisted, we ended up with a government which bowed to them- as did most of the EU. And they even  got extended to cover power. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt hit electricity generation companies with a 45% Energy Electricity Generator Levy, on their ‘excess returns’ as he attempted to fund measures to ease the cost of living crisis. That was in addition to the existing windfall tax on North Sea oil & gas operators which is to be raised from 25% to 35% and extended by 2 years until 2028. 

Renewable energy suppliers that operate under the Contracts for Difference system are exempted from the new electricity tax, but not those who are operating under the Renewables Obligation (RO). So they will be hit quite hard- they had after all enjoyed a significant wind fall since the RO subsidy level was high, based on the assumption that gas was cheap. It no longer is.  There will now be an incentive to shift from RO support to CfDs, but this may not be easy for some companies.  

To help them, the government says that it’s ‘legislating for powers that would allow us to consider running a voluntary Contracts for Difference process for existing generators to take place in 2023’, to give generators longer-term revenue certainty & safeguard consumers from further price rises. However, they may need more help. Indeed, the solar energy industry lobby says solar is being disadvantaged, with loopholes in the wind fall tax system which let fossil fuels off the hook. Chris Hewett, Chief Executive of Solar Energy UK, said: ‘The Chancellor should be taking every opportunity to encourage investment in clean energy. Yet, there will be no tax relief for companies investing in meeting the government’s target of 70GW of solar capacity by 2035 – unlike investments in oil and gas production, which will be taxed less than fossil-free generators.’ 

He may not be offering more money, but Hunt does seem to be talking some of the talk on renewables. In the autumn budget statement he said  ‘Britain is a global leader in renewable energy. Last year nearly 40% of our electricity came from offshore wind, solar & other renewable sources. Since 2010, our renewable energy production grew faster than any other large country in Europe.’ And he went on ‘we need to go further, with a major acceleration of home-grown technologies like offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and, above all, nuclear’.  Adding nuclear to the list is maybe a little devious, CCS too, especially since he then says ‘this will deliver new jobs, industries and export opportunities and secure the clean, affordable energy we need to power our future economy and reach Net Zero.’ Will nuclear (and CCS) really be affordable? 

The government evidently thinks nuclear will be, although it needs more backing- there’s  £700m to support the next stage in the Sizewell C finance programme. It is less clear if more money will be forthcoming to help legacy renewables cope with the shift to CfDs. Certainly any hint of bailing out existing projects is unlikely to go down well after the multi- billion Bulb Energy debacle.  Power companies are not exactly popular just now. Even green power supplier Good Energy was amongst companies Ofgem told to improve how it dealt with struggling consumers .

Nevertheless, there are still clear pressures for more support for new renewables, and not  just from the left.  On the right, the Centre for Policy Studies is backing a new growth-oriented campaign group which says that the UK is slowing down on key projects and needs to do better.  For example, it notes that ‘the Hornsea 3 wind farm off the Norfolk coast is a good example. When finished, it will be the largest offshore wind farm in the world, generating enough electricity to power three million homes, while creating 5,000 jobs. Yet the project has been delayed four times, and isn’t set to come online till 2027, despite originally being proposed in 2016’. 

It adds ‘If we’re to reduce our reliance on foreign gas and slash bills, we need to address the bottlenecks in our planning system preventing new supply of energy from being built. It is, to give one example, utterly baffling that the Government looks set to keep the effective ban on onshore wind farms at the same time as forking out billions to cap household and business energy bills this winter. Too often policy mistakes, like the continued ban on onshore wind, happen because politicians listen to a vocal minority of voters opposed to building. In fact, polling we’ve commissioned shows there is majority support for new wind and solar projects’.                                                                             

Fine, we need to do better, backing on shore wind as well as offshore wind. Despite what the Prime Minister says or said, that makes political sense- its popular with voters. Solar too.  Hopefully we will see changes on all this, with Grant Shapps eventually (next April?!) accepting sensible growth policies for on shore wind and also for solar.  But is all growth of everything always good? e.g. nuclear growth, which the lobby group also hints at?  Maybe not.  Chris Hewett, chief executive of Solar Energy UK, says that ‘the energy price crisis has been caused by the UK’s historical reliance on gas, which has backfired, causing enormous damage to the economy. A swifter move to decarbonised energy would have avoided the dire consequences we are seeing now.’ Fair enough. But that doesn’t mean opting for costly and slow to deploy nuclear decarbonisation.  It means getting on with lower cost renewables fast and adjusting the wind fall taxes and CfD system to that end. And of course cutting back on energy wastage where ever possible. 

Will we see anything like that in the new year? Or will the government get side-tracked by its nuclear obsession, with its newly created development outfit ‘Great British Nuclear’ expected to triple UK nuclear capacity by 2050 - getting to 24GW, with 20-30 SMRs and 4-6 new large reactors. Hard to believe. But so is backing a new coal mine. Let’s hope 2023 makes more sense….


In case you are interested:  I am recovering slowly from my recent operation. It wasn't fun. But the NHS did well.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Global Energy Outlooks - BP v Jacobson

The share of renewables in global primary energy may increase ‘from around 10% in 2019 to between 35-65% by 2050, driven by the improved cost competitiveness of renewables, together with the increasing prevalence of policies encouraging a shift to low-carbon energy’. So says BP in its latest Global Energy Outlook . It does see wind and solar accounting ‘for all or most of the growth in power generation’, but even at the top of the range quoted, it still falls a lot short of the renewable ‘100% of total energy’ scenarios that have been produced by some academics in recent years.  To fill the gap to zero net carbon, BP sees wide-scale use being made use of carbon capture technology, as well as some nuclear power. And it says ‘Natural declines in existing production sources mean there needs to be continuing upstream investment in oil and natural gas over the next 30 years’. You won’t find much support for these fossil and nuclear options in the scenarios produced by Stanford Universities

Small Modular reactors- a US view

Allison Macfarlane, who was Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from 2012-2014, has been looking at Small Modular Reactors in the USA and elsewhere. She thinks they are likely to be uneconomic, much like the their larger brethren, which, as she describes, have recently been doing very poorly in the USA.  Indeed, just like the EPR story in the EU, it makes for a sorry saga: ‘The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.’ Big reactors do look increasingly hard to fund and build on time and budget, while it is argued that smaller ones could be mass produced in factories at lower unit costs and finished units installed on site more rapidly. However, that would mean foregoing conventional economies

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av