The huge sums energy firms get to NOT provide power
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?
Net zero under attack
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.
Could 'zonal' pricing lower bills?
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.
Energy firms push back
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.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
Poll sees Reform UK take nine-point lead over Labour
An Ipsos poll indicates Reform UK has a significant nine-point lead over Labour, with 34 per cent of the vote share compared to Labour 's 25 per cent. The survey also shows the Conservatives at a record low of 15 per cent, marking their lowest ever result recorded by Ipsos and Reform's highest. The poll suggests a potential scenario where Nigel Farage could become prime minister if a general election were held immediately, though the next election is not expected until 2028. Labour 's popularity has significantly declined, with only 19 per cent of respondents satisfied with Sir Keir Starmer's performance, and a high proportion of Labour and Tory voters defecting to Reform. Reform UK recently experienced internal turmoil with the resignation of chairman Zia Yusuf following a dispute involving new MP Sarah Pochin.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform UK surges to highest-ever rating in polls, new survey suggests
Nigel Farage 's Reform UK party has taken a dramatic nine-point lead over Labour, a new poll has revealed. The Ipsos survey showed Reform had 34 per cent of the vote share, compared to Labour's dwindling 25 per cent. This could mean that if a general election were held tomorrow, Mr Farage could be elected prime minister - but the next election is not expected to be until 2028 at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Conservatives had only 15 per cent of the estimated vote share in the lowest result ever recorded by Ipsos, and the highest ever for Reform. The figures from the polling of 1,180 Brits show Labour's plunging popularity, after winning the 2024 general election with the biggest majority since Tony Blair. Only 19 per cent say they are satisfied with the work he is doing, while 73 per cent were dissatisfied, according to the poll. The figures showed that 54 per cent of Labour voters and 48 per cent of Tory voters have changed their support, with a high proportion of defectors from both going to Reform. If that played out, there would be just 10 Conservative seats while Labour would be reduced from 403 to 140. Gideon Skinner, senior director of UK politics at Ipsos, said: 'The disappointment with Labour is clear, even among those who voted for the party in 2024. 'We know from Ipsos research how difficult it has been to shift entrenched public pessimism over the cost of living, immigration, and the state of public services. 'So far, Britons do not think Labour is delivering the tangible change they were hoping for in 2024.' Earlier this month, Reform was hit with chaos after the man brought in by Nigel Farage to professionalise the party quit following a row with their newest MP. Zia Yusuf, a Muslim businessman, described new Runcorn MP Sarah Pochin as 'dumb' after she challenged Keir Starmer over the legality of women wearing the burqa in the UK during Prime Minister's Questions. After fury broke out about his comment, Mr Yusuf, who had been the target of anger by many activists over several months, announced his resignation. He wrote on X: '11 months ago, I became chairman of Reform. I've worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30 per cent, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results. 'I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.'
Times
24 minutes ago
- Times
Iran is a direct threat to Britain — Israel's fight is ours too
Too many politicians treat the world like a student union. Abstract, simplistic and completely disconnected from reality. The world is not a debating club. It is a dangerous place where power matters, where democracy is fragile and where enemies don't play by the rules. That's why we need to be clear: supporting Israel is not just right — it is necessary for our own national security. Israelis are at the front line in the fight for the West and for our shared values. First, Iran is a direct threat to the UK and has been for years. Our security services have stopped multiple Iranian terrorist plots and assassination attempts on UK soil. Its ballistic missiles can reach Europe. We should support any ally that seeks to damage Iran's nuclear programme and eliminate the threat posed by the terror-exporting Revolutionary Guards. Anti-British sentiment is almost as central to the ayatollahs' deranged ideology as their obsessive hatred of Israel and the United States. They use the term 'Little Satan' interchangeably to refer to both the UK and Israel. Iran uses influence through mosques, schools and fake charities to radicalise and corrupt our own population: taking advantage of our democracy to advance its theocracy. • Iran's 'insidious propaganda network' on British soil revealed Second, Iran and Israel are not moral equivalents. Israel is a vibrant democracy that protects women and minorities and encourages them to vote, speak and dissent. In Iran women are brutalised by a theocratic dictatorship. Their ability to travel and work is restricted. They are beaten for showing their hair. Tortured for asking questions. Executed for demanding freedom. Anyone who can't see the difference between a liberal democracy and a terrorist regime needs to spend less time on social media and more time understanding reality. When Iran launched its latest barrage of missiles, it didn't target military installations. It targeted city centres. High rise housing. Hospitals. Civilians. This is a war crime, plain and simple. No excuses. No spin. And still, we have western politicians giving copy-and-paste statements as if this were a playground spat between equal players in a 'cycle of violence'. Israel's response, in contrast, is surgical. It decapitated Iran's offensive capabilities with extraordinary precision and minimal civilian casualties. Images of holes made by guided bombs in the sides of flats occupied by specific regime operatives are testament to Israel's values. When Iran attacks, millions of Israelis hide in bomb shelters. When Israel attacks, Iranian dissidents record the impact against regime targets and cheer. Military strategists will be studying this campaign for decades as a model for how to defend your people without losing your moral compass and in compliance with international law. Israel has a right to defend itself. Iran has been openly committed to the destruction of Israel for decades. Through its proxy, Hamas, the regime orchestrated the murder of 1,200 people on October 7 and has said it would do it again. Any democracy facing such an existential threat from a genocidal regime would and must act to defend itself. Most Arab nations understand this; some say it openly. Many ordinary Iranians bitterly oppose their regime which for 46 years has been robbing them of their future. They know that Israel is not the problem. They condemn violence, yes, but they have no time for the delusions of the western left. They've had enough of people in Islington pretending to speak for Gaza while doing nothing for peace. • Inside the Iranian opposition, from a rapper to the Shah's son But of course, the usual crowd in Britain and beyond rushed to condemn Israel. They ignore the facts. Because it's not really about Israel — it's about their own moral posturing. While Israel takes on the arrayed enemies of the West, fighting terrorism on multiple fronts, and facing Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran at once, their so-called allies condemn them. Nigel Farage warned that 'Israel is running out of friends', while sharing discredited Hamas death toll figures to show 'why the international community struggles'. The SNP and Liberal Democrats offered vague, hand-wringing commentary with zero understanding of the world we live in. But we are up against ideologues armed with drones, not dinner party dilemmas. Most egregious of all is the weak and morally deficient Labour government, continually singling out Israel for punishment for daring to exercise its right to self-defence. While our ally faces an existential threat and takes on our enemies, Keir Starmer and David Lammy vacillate and equivocate, and Lord Hermer imposes his own interpretation of international law. This moral cowardice hurts us as a nation. It damages trade ties, harms vital intelligence co-operation with Israel which keeps us safe, drives a wedge between us and our allies and empowers an Iranian regime that views Britain as its enemy. This is not what responsible governments do. Due to this Labour government's hostility towards Israel, bilateral relations have deteriorated to such an extent that Britain was not even informed about the attack on Iran. We are no longer trusted and are viewed as unreliable. Lammy's confused antics diminish us on the global stage. A strong nation is clear about its interests and the threats it faces. Labour does not have the moral clarity to see this. Their vision is blurred by Starmer's inability to make up his mind on anything, and his political need to pander to foolish views. It is this same weakness that drives them to undermine and surrender core British interests in the Chagos Islands. Support for Israel is not about sentiment. It's about security, sovereignty and survival. We stand with Israel because it shares our values. Because it defends itself against terrorists who have their sights on us, too. Because if we don't stand with democracies under attack, we embolden those who hate everything we stand for. And what we see now is a weak UK emboldening its enemies. The attack on Israel is part of a broader assault on Western values. An assault on free, democratic countries from an axis of authoritarian states. Their fight is our fight.
