[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] The government cannot leave energy policy to the market

[Bill Totten]

New Statesman Leader (February 28 2008)


The directors of Centrica have been wise to stay in hiding since the
energy giant's British Gas subsidiary announced a 500 per cent leap in
profits to GBP 571 million, after inflicting a fifteen per cent price
rise on customers. But the shareholder bonanza found plenty of apologists.

Britain is no longer self-sufficient in energy and must get used to
being buffeted by global events, they argued; Britain is subject to wild
price fluctuations because of its deregulated energy market; Britain's
more regulated European energy partners do not always play fair (they
put their own needs first). All of which is a way of saying that, when
it comes to domestic energy needs, the market rules, a view more or less
explicitly shared by government.

Such explanations leave the important questions unanswered: why British
Gas passes its trading windfalls upwards to Centrica rather than
downwards to customers and how a small, populous island can plan a
rational energy future while at the mercy of Europe's volatile relations
with Moscow and Gazprom (lucidly analysed by Misha Glenny on page 24).

In truth, for incontestable reasons, the government cannot leave energy
policy at the mercy of the market. It has clear legal obligations on two
fronts. First, it has commitments to vulnerable energy users under the
Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, reinforced by subsequent
strategies to tackle fuel poverty. Second, it has binding international
obligations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Both require urgent
action. Both have to be forced to work together in a rational energy
policy. Cheaper fuel is not conducive to lowering carbon emissions.

The government's hopes of ending fuel poverty - defined as spending more
than ten per cent of income on heat and power - by 2016 are on course to
be dashed if fuel prices stay high. The number of households now
categorised as being in fuel poverty is increasing year by year. Since
2002 it has doubled from two million to roughly four million despite
investment of between GBP 4 billion and GBP 5 billion. Meanwhile, its
hopes of achieving carbon-emission targets depend on substantially
decreasing household emissions, which currently account for 27 per cent
of the UK's total.

The failure to square this circle leaves pressure groups, notably
Friends of the Earth, questioning whether the government is spending its
well-intentioned billions wisely. Two substantial government programmes
were intended to acknowledge both ambitions. Warm Front aimed to ensure
that those on benefits had access to energy-saving measures. The Energy
Efficiency Commitment obliged suppliers to subsidise energy efficiency,
particularly for the vulnerable. Neither has protected the poor from
rising prices or made an impact on carbon emissions.

The coming Budget offers opportunities. The Chancellor could court
instant approval by increasing winter fuel allowances to pensioners and
extending their scope to all vulnerable households. This would be only a
short-term solution. Fuel use would increase (as people spend money
heating draughty homes) and, as prices rose, benefits would also need to
rise. Meanwhile, household emissions would remain stubbornly high.

Or, Alistair Darling could be radical. A report recently released by
Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute, Home Truths, argued
that fuel poverty could be eliminated along with an ambitious programme
of cutting carbon emissions. It called for a street-by-street approach
to energy efficiency, arguing that an initial investment of GBP 12.9
billion a year for ten years could deliver eighty per cent cuts in
carbon emissions, could eliminate fuel poverty and would pay for itself
with permanent energy savings of GBP 12.3 billion a year. The average
household would have energy bills cut by at least 66 per cent,
equivalent to a GBP 425 annual saving at today's prices.

But more is needed. We are too exposed to a far-from-rational energy
market. Malcolm Wicks, the responsible minister, has recognised the need
for major investment in sustainable alternative energy sources. The
Chancellor must now provide the financial framework.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200802280001

TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/