Clive Moffatt is the Chairman of the UK Energy Security Group
If the Conservative Party is to have any chance of regaining power at the next general election, it needs to convince the public that it stands firmly behind the majority of the UK population who will have to foot the huge bill for Miliband’s delusions and suffer from regular power cuts with no economic benefits.
Trump’s impressive victory and commitment to “drill baby drill” has been a major wake-up call for delegates gathering this week in Baku for COP 29 and the whole of the global clean energy business.
It will inevitably raise further doubts amongst UK investors and consumers about the desirability of Labour’s “go it alone” decarbonisation agenda.
Last week, the newly nationalised Electricity System Operator (NESO) did not give Miliband the validity he was seeking for his 2030 decarbonisation target.
The report warned that the planned transformation of the electricity network could cost in the region of £200 billion in the next five years but it dodged the issue of who pays and how.
More importantly, it warned of a “quadrupling” in demand flexibility, which is engineer speak for a massive increase in energy rationing. If that fails then blackouts to compensate for the lack of gas generation and the variability of renewable energy will be required.
We can expect that Labour’s forthcoming Clean Energy White Paper will also be riddled with more policy grandstanding and fantasy assumptions about costs and benefits.
There is talk within the Tory Party of a comprehensive internal energy policy review but given the scale and speed and risks associated with what is being proposed there is no time to wait to challenge Labour.
What Kemi Badenoch and Claire Coutinho need to do right now is commit to some key policy principles and attack Labour’s specific proposals as they emerge:
My proposed four key principles would be:
Energy security and affordability must take precedence over reducing carbon emissions.
This means abandoning all arbitrary emissions targets beginning with the current target to decarbonise the electricity system by 2030. It also implies placing a moratorium on further subsidised renewable energy generation and other “green” technologies eg CCS, hydrogen production, and battery storage pending a comprehensive cost-benefit appraisal.
Let the market decide on the timing, scale, and cost of transitioning to “green” technologies affecting business processes and domestic consumption.
This means removing all forms of supply and consumption incentives and penalties on electrification of heat and transport and domestic and business energy efficiency.
Focus energy policy on underpinning the existing gas-to-power supply chain to ensure reliable power supplies and mitigate energy price volatility.
This means taking immediate steps to underpin new private investment in unabated flexible gas generation and gas storage and taking measures to balance short-term demand and supply of both electricity and natural gas in real-time.
Remove the longstanding bias in energy market governance and market regulation in favour of decarbonisation and the commercial interests of developers and suppliers.
This means scrapping the CCC and Ofgem, the energy price cap, and re-positioning the NESO as an independent Strategic Energy Authority to scale back unrealistic targets for decarbonisation and adopt a more realistic and balanced approach to security, affordability, and sustainability.
Kemi Badenoch, Claire Coutinho, and Andrew Bowie are all very aware that net zero is no excuse for taking risks with energy security and affordability when the economy and consumers are crying out for greater stability to feed economic growth.
But given that the Tories sanctioned the pursuit of net zero for the last 14 years the key question is do they possess the political will to challenge the fundamental assumptions behind the 2030 decarbonisation target and take a more balanced approach?
Clive Moffatt is the Chairman of the UK Energy Security Group
If the Conservative Party is to have any chance of regaining power at the next general election, it needs to convince the public that it stands firmly behind the majority of the UK population who will have to foot the huge bill for Miliband’s delusions and suffer from regular power cuts with no economic benefits.
Trump’s impressive victory and commitment to “drill baby drill” has been a major wake-up call for delegates gathering this week in Baku for COP 29 and the whole of the global clean energy business.
It will inevitably raise further doubts amongst UK investors and consumers about the desirability of Labour’s “go it alone” decarbonisation agenda.
Last week, the newly nationalised Electricity System Operator (NESO) did not give Miliband the validity he was seeking for his 2030 decarbonisation target.
The report warned that the planned transformation of the electricity network could cost in the region of £200 billion in the next five years but it dodged the issue of who pays and how.
More importantly, it warned of a “quadrupling” in demand flexibility, which is engineer speak for a massive increase in energy rationing. If that fails then blackouts to compensate for the lack of gas generation and the variability of renewable energy will be required.
We can expect that Labour’s forthcoming Clean Energy White Paper will also be riddled with more policy grandstanding and fantasy assumptions about costs and benefits.
There is talk within the Tory Party of a comprehensive internal energy policy review but given the scale and speed and risks associated with what is being proposed there is no time to wait to challenge Labour.
What Kemi Badenoch and Claire Coutinho need to do right now is commit to some key policy principles and attack Labour’s specific proposals as they emerge:
My proposed four key principles would be:
Energy security and affordability must take precedence over reducing carbon emissions.
This means abandoning all arbitrary emissions targets beginning with the current target to decarbonise the electricity system by 2030. It also implies placing a moratorium on further subsidised renewable energy generation and other “green” technologies eg CCS, hydrogen production, and battery storage pending a comprehensive cost-benefit appraisal.
Let the market decide on the timing, scale, and cost of transitioning to “green” technologies affecting business processes and domestic consumption.
This means removing all forms of supply and consumption incentives and penalties on electrification of heat and transport and domestic and business energy efficiency.
Focus energy policy on underpinning the existing gas-to-power supply chain to ensure reliable power supplies and mitigate energy price volatility.
This means taking immediate steps to underpin new private investment in unabated flexible gas generation and gas storage and taking measures to balance short-term demand and supply of both electricity and natural gas in real-time.
Remove the longstanding bias in energy market governance and market regulation in favour of decarbonisation and the commercial interests of developers and suppliers.
This means scrapping the CCC and Ofgem, the energy price cap, and re-positioning the NESO as an independent Strategic Energy Authority to scale back unrealistic targets for decarbonisation and adopt a more realistic and balanced approach to security, affordability, and sustainability.
Kemi Badenoch, Claire Coutinho, and Andrew Bowie are all very aware that net zero is no excuse for taking risks with energy security and affordability when the economy and consumers are crying out for greater stability to feed economic growth.
But given that the Tories sanctioned the pursuit of net zero for the last 14 years the key question is do they possess the political will to challenge the fundamental assumptions behind the 2030 decarbonisation target and take a more balanced approach?