Over the past few days I have been invited to comment in the mainstream press about the current energy crisis, both in terms of security of supply and high costs. These two legs of the trilemma now dominate the news as people rightly worry about eye-wateringly high increases in the price cap, and the growing risk of blackouts. Regular readers will know that I have been warning about supply risks for some time, and that ignoring the energy security and affordability aspects of the trilemma as we have done in recent years is a recipe for disaster.
Price cap increases creating real hardship
Cornwall Insight has published a shocking forecast for the price cap over the winter and beyond indicating that households can now expect to spend more than £4,000 per year on their energy, four times the amount they were paying when the cap was introduced. Ofgem has also decided that rapidly changing wholesale prices mean the cap must be reviewed more often, and so from October, it will be revised quarterly instead of semi-annually. Of course, this will benefit consumers when prices begin to fall, but unfortunately there is no immediate prospect of that happening.
The huge increases for October will be confirmed by Ofgem later this month, but there have been widespread calls for the cap level to be frozen. This is to fundamentally mis-understand what the cap is for and what a freeze would mean for the market.
Knee-jerk reactions must be avoided
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, writing in the Guardian, says that instead of “allowing Ofgem to announce an increase on a scale that will send shock waves through every household”, the government should prevent the cap from being raised, “assess the actual costs of the energy supplies being sold to consumers by the major companies; and, after reviewing the profit margins, and examining how to make standing charges and social tariffs more progressive, negotiate separate company agreements to keep prices down.” He also believes that if energy companies cannot absorb these additional costs they should be temporarily nationalised. Elsewhere in the article, he mistakenly says Norway is planning to keep its gas supplies for itself this winter – confusing Norway’s policies on gas and electricity.
These views are echoed by Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, who agrees that the price cap increase should be cancelled, and that “there should be serious work with the energy companies to tax windfall profits and to restructure the factors that lead to the cost of energy right now”.
The Labour Party has come up with a less radical but still dangerous plan. It wants to see the cap being frozen, but financed through an extension of the windfall tax on oil and gas producers in time, backdating it to January, and in scope, to exclude the deduction for new upstream investments. Of course this would dis-incentivise the very increases in production that are necessary to stabilise wholesale prices in the medium term. Labour’s plan only covers the period from October to April, although wholesale prices are not expected to re-balance over that period.
While many of these plans may attract popular approval, they risk harming both the retail market and the prospects for new oil and gas production. People are upset that “energy companies” are making “record profits”, but the companies making these profits are not for the most part the companies selling to the domestic energy market, and they have already been subjected to a significant windfall tax.
A closer look at the so-called “record” energy profits
Companies which sell gas and electricity to households have not been making record profits. In fact, despite gaining 200,000 additional residential customers British Gas Energy saw operating profits drop by 43% in the year to 30 June 2022. Overall, the Centrica group of which British Gas is a part made £1.3 billion of operating profits, of which £421 million came from the upstream business (up from a loss of £47 million in 2021) and £485 million from its stake in upstream oil and gas company Spirit Energy (£122 million in 2021) which is being sold, £278 million came from the mid-stream trading business (loss of £40 million in 2021), and £98 million from British Gas Energy (down from £172 million in 2021).
Losses within British Gas Energy from the price cap and inheriting un-hedged customers under the SOLR process were off-set by lower customer demand due to warmer than expected weather, which allowed surplus gas and electricity to be sold back to the market at higher prices. Business customers represent about a quarter of revenues with the rest being from the domestic market. Centrica lost around £500 million in the SOLR process, and while it should be able to recover around two thirds of these costs, it was still a large funding requirement for the business to absorb last year.
These factors have allowed Centrica to re-instate its cash dividend, something it suspended in 2020 to conserve cash when oil prices collapsed with the onset of the pandemic. But before anyone cries out that this rewards greedy fat cats, it is worth remembering that Centrica shares are widely held by pension and insurance funds.
In fact, Centrica has already been contributing more broadly. It has provided £7 million to the British Gas Energy Trust, which helps fund debt charities, and provide grants of up to £750 to help any customer – not just British Gas customers – who are struggling to pay their bills. It has also given £6 million to the British Gas Energy Support Fund which helps British Gas customers, and it has repaid all of the covid furlough payments it received from the Government. It also expects to pay £600 million in windfall taxes although these are not included in the 2022 accounts since the relevant legislation was not passed until after the balance sheet date.
We can see from the data, that Centrica’s record profits in the past year have been almost entirely driven by the upstream business. This illustrates the point that energy suppliers are not seeing record earnings except in the rare cases that they also happen to have upstream oil and gas production businesses. Shell also falls into this category, but has far fewer supply customers.
The question is whether Centrica should use these upstream profits to subsidise prices to domestic gas and electricity consumers. Clearly Gordon Brown, Nicola Sturgeon and others believe it should, but let’s examine what would happen if it did. British Gas would be in a position to undercut the rest of the domestic market, and cash-strapped consumers would flock back to the former incumbent. In a single stroke, 20 years of building a competitive supply market would be undermined, and once back with British Gas, many of these customers wouldn’t switch again.
Of course, the Government could try to force British Gas to first subsidise the market and later give up these customers, but that action would attract legal challenge, and rightly so – it is not the job of Centrica (or its pensioner shareholders) to subsidise the domestic supply market. Any such action would have long-term adverse consequences for the energy market, and the British economy more broadly.
“Rather than critiquing the methodology of the cap, it may be time to consider the cap’s place altogether. After all, if it is not controlling consumer prices, and is damaging suppliers’ business models, we must wonder if it is fit for purpose – especially in these times of unprecedented energy market conditions.
It is essential that the government use [sic] our predictions to spur on a review of the support package being offered to consumers. If the £400 was not enough to make a dent in the impact of our previous forecast, it most certainly is not enough now. The government must make introducing more support over the first two quarters of 2023 a number one priority. In the longer-term, a social tariff or other support mechanism to target support at the most vulnerable in society are options that we at Cornwall Insight have proposed previously. Right now, the current price cap is not working for consumers, suppliers, or the economy,”
– Dr Craig Lowrey, Principal Consultant at Cornwall Insight
Potential approaches to minimise the adverse impact of the energy crisis
So what is the answer to the immediate crisis? The only real solution is for the state to subsidise energy costs for consumers – the questions are how and by how much. The first three points on my list would save around £400 on a £4,000 bill – not enough by itself, but a start with the £400 support package already announced, although more help will be needed.
Overall, the Government should:
- Move all green levies to general taxation
- Suspend the UK ETS and other carbon taxes
- Set VAT on domestic energy bills to zero
- Buy out the SOLR costs so that these are no longer recovered from bills – this will reduce standing charges and directly help consumers reduce the amount they pay through lower consumption
- Abolish the price cap and replace it with a social tariff funded by the state (through increased borrowing in the near term)
- Change the way wholesale electricity prices are set so that renewable generation is paid on a cost-plus basis and everything else is paid on the existing marginal cost basis with a weighted average setting the price paid by consumers
- Extend the windfall tax to renewable generators subsidised under the Renewables Obligation and selling under floating price PPAs, and require all holders of CfDs to activate them as soon as the first phase of the project starts to be commissioned, backdating these start dates as necessary
- Encourage (and provide financial support if necessary) to local councils so they can support people with the following measures:
- Opening “warm hubs” where people can go during the day to avoid heating their homes
- Provide advice on how to access support for help with energy bills for example from charities and utility hardship funds
- Provide advice on how to reduce energy use in the home, including assistance with adjusting heating controls, turning off devices that are otherwise on standby, addressing draughts and cooking using less energy
- Assistance for people whose energy use could be reduced through simple home improvements such as basic repairs and addition of insulation (ie advising how repairs and other remedies can be funded such as by energy companies through the ECO, or by charities)
Practical advice for households
BEIS, Ofgem, Citizens Advice and Energy UK have developed guides for households to help with the current high costs of energy, based on input from charities and consumer bodies on the most common questions they are asked.
These guides are for domestic energy consumers. Separate advice for businesses is available here: Energy advice for businesses.
Beyond the domestic sphere, the Government needs to consider each segment of the business world to ensure as much support as possible is extended, particularly to small businesses and energy intensive industries, both of which will find the looming winter price increases very difficult to absorb.
Talk of “freezing the cap” needs to stop, as must complaints about energy company profits. Upstream producers, as can be seen from Centrica’s results, have had a difficult few years before this one, and it is vital that they re-invest profits in more upstream production (which is provided for in the windfall tax). Ultimately the only way that prices will come down is when global gas prices come down, and that will only happen when new sources of supply come on-stream globally to replace Russian gas.
Security of supply is looking increasingly shaky
The other problem that is beginning to get attention is that of security of supply. I have been warning about winter supply risks arising in the mid-2020s since I first began writing about the topic six years ago. Replacing thermal and nuclear generation with intermittent renewables creates a risk when wind output is low, and renewables penetration has reached levels in various countries including Britain where it is becoming difficult to meet demand when there is no wind.
We have now had three Capacity Market Notices this summer – two on 18 July and another 11 August. That we have struggled to meet demand in summer is worrying, and we have been relying on coal and imports to meet demand. This winter we may face the additional stress of exporting to France, and as IFA-1 is expected to return to full service (2 GW versus 1 GW currently) these exports will reach 4 GW in total. We are consistently importing 1 GW each from the Netherlands and Belgium and 1.4 GW from Norway, however the Norwegian government is considering the possibility of linking exports to hydro levels, restricting them when water levels are low.
It had been reported that the Norwegian Parliament would be recalled this week to discuss these proposals, but the debate is now expected to take place in mid-Sepember after initial proposals from the Government were rejected by Speaker of the Norwegian Parliament. The Parliament is not due to return from its recess until October, so it will be recalled early for this discussion, however opposition politicians have expressed concerns at the delay. As reservoir levels in the south of Norway – the region to which the interconnectors are linked – are at lows not seen since the mid-1990s, any restrictions could be in place for some time.
Despite repeated public statements of reassurance from the Government, a leaked analysis published by Bloomberg last week suggests that a “reasonable worst case scenario” could see a capacity shortfall of about a sixth of peak demand, even after the emergency coal plants have been dispatched (these are the units that were due to close this year but have agreed to remain open to provide back-up capacity if needed).
“We have one of the most reliable and diverse energy systems in the world, and unlike Europe, we are not dependent on Russian energy imports meaning households, businesses and industry can be confident they will get the electricity and gas they need,”
– BEIS spokesperson
The reassurances from BEIS are sounding hollow, and indeed rather than boosting confidence, are making the Government look increasingly detached from reality. Possibly there is a reluctance to spook the market, but if the market already expects rationing and possible shortages, then these statements simply make the Government appear to be in denial, which is the opposite of reassuring. Businesses are scrambling to hire back-up generators, hardly the action of people confident in energy security.
Potential solutions to the security of supply risks this winter
Rather than pretending everything is fine, the Government should act to boost capacity margins:
- Ensure all of the closing coal units that can remain open this winter, do – so far deals have been done with Drax and EDF, but there has been no confirmation that the unit at Ratcliffe will remain open. If an agreement has been reached, the market should be informed, as it has with the others, and if not, all efforts should be made to secure one
- The two mothballed Calon CCGTs should be returned to service as soon as possible. The Government should consider offering these units the same terms as the T-1 capacity contracts for this winter to de-risk the position for the owners
- The Government should negotiate an arrangement with the Norwegian government whereby Britain would run out-of-merit generation throughout the rest of the summer and into the autumn in order to support exports to Norway, in exchange for assurances that Britain can import from Norway should a system stress event leading to possible load-shedding occur
- The Government and National Grid ESO should work with large energy consumers to ensure that demand reductions can be secured (and appropriately compensated) if necessary. Emissions limits for back-up generation using fossil-fuels should be suspended for the duration of the winter
- The Government and National Grid ESO should also develop plans to call on the public to shift demand in times of system stress for example through appeals to change the timing of the evening meal, turn down electric heating for a period of time, turn off all non-essential lights and appliances and so on. Similar appeals have been used with some success in Texas and elsewhere this summer
Claims that everything is fine are all very well, but concrete action will be more compelling, and a good deal more useful should capacity shortages occur.
Time to re-shape energy policy around the trilemma
When the UK began its energy transition, it explicitly recognised the need to balance de-carbonisation with affordability and security of supply, however as wholesale prices were low and installed capacity was high, affordability and security were taken for granted.
Energy security has been slipping away year by year as conventional thermal and nuclear generation has been replaced by intermittent renewables, without the bulk seasonal storage technologies needed to manage that intermittency being deployed.
A price shock has more dramatically taken away affordability to a degree that millions of people are facing fuel poverty this winter.
In the short term, the current energy crisis is an emergency and needs to be treated as such. There are no good options, but the harms of creating new subsidies need to be set off against the harms of widespread poverty and the likely closure of many small businesses.
Longer term, we need a return to energy realism. Not all generation is equally useful, and simply building ever more wind capacity will do nothing to address security of supply issues arising from low-wind weather conditions, particularly as electrification of heating and transport will boost demand. These are painful lessons – it’s important we learn them.
Media links
If you are interested in seeing my recent media appearances relating to these topics, please visit these links:
- GB News (I am not responsible for the clip title): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OKF_zVcUV0
- Al Jazeera: https://mediaview.aljazeera.com/video/MrQ1R0hxiL
- BBC Newsnight: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001b0pf
- BBC Radio 5, Wake up to Money: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0019wvb (from 4 minutes)
- BBC Radio 5, Drive Live: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0019wyd and https://twitter.com/i/status/1558108686941388809 (from 41 minutes)
- BBC Radio Humberside: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0clv6zh (from 1 hour 12 minutes)
- BBC Radio Sheffield: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0cpmpnz (from 3 hours 17 minutes)
The BBC links will expire in about a months’ time.
Kathryn
Why is so little said about people seeing where their Energy is going and helping them reduce consumption?
For example: we have monitored number of Hospitality sites and people do things like leaving Coffee machines on all night, this can cost them literally thousands per year.
They turn on the commercial dishwasher as soon as the chef’s come in, this is typically a 7kW element in a big tank of water …..
Almost every site we have monitored they have beer coolers pumping hot air into the cellar that has a massive chiller trying to keep the temp down to 12’C. This is in a sealed room with outside air at 10’C i.e. free cooling.
One of our sites saved 29% just by very simple measures, they are heading towards 50% saving.
Most people have no concept of what energy is.
And most equipment is built by the manufacturers with little or thought about energy saving. e.g. insulation of design.
That is why the European Commission set the limit to Vacuum Cleaner wattage. Because manufacturers were getting more suction by using a bigger motor, rather than the more expensive better designed impellers etc.
People do try to discuss this, but they often do it badly and then get shot down, particularly in the domestic sector…for example the star jumps advice last year as a way of keeping warm without using the heating.
I agree it’s important, and why we need to be providing more advice to both households and businesses about sensible measures, and critics need to remember that people can have vulnerabilities which mean that what is obvious to some is not obvious to others (although the star jumps advice was poor in any circumstances). This is a gap in the advice published by Ofgem today – there should be advice on how to reduce consumption. Off the top of my head, I would suggest that people do the following things:
A similar list could be developed for businesses.
Simon crikey this is extraordinary and high unit prices should surely get every business undertaking an urgent energy audit of where all their consumption is going before they start whinging about how their costs are going up.
I am delighted to see that your contributions are finally starting to be given the attention they deserve.
My manager during the 1980’s was a control engineer at Portsmouth in the 1950’s who talked of using local radio messages asking customers to curtail demand when local generation was constrained
It’s a bit sad that we are considering repeating this exercise, despite our investments in smart meters, etc
Informed and constructive as usual, Kathryn. One question: why move green levies to general taxation? Why not suspend or abolish them altogether?
They are legal contracts between the Government and the generators, so they can’t just be abolished, and any re-structuring would take time to implement. I do think the RO should be re-structured, but it would be hard to do it quickly. Moving the levies to taxation does not effect the generators and can be done fast.
I have been hawking round “my plan” on twitter for a few weeks now – finessing it as I think about it a bit more:
https://twitter.com/GazzaMraz/status/1559813461516996613?s=20&t=lIcyKDdiCDuNghuej7WJbA
I find it comforting therefore that it appears to be cut from similar cloth as our host’s, though making allowances for my lack of expertise.
And yet in some ways I thinks its obvious what needs to be done:
* Cut all taxes and levies
* Restructure the market to reduce obvious costs
* Then, offer prudent help to customers to get past this crisis
Medium term we then have to be thinking about how we can further drive down costs. So increase UK gas capacity with a vengeance – using long term contracts might be a good idea. Perhaps new CCGT’s and/or refurbishing coal plants that we didn’t blow up. We also need to think about accelerating nuclear, we need more diversity in firm capacity, and I’m guessing we won’t want to build more coal plants (and even if we did they take a long time). I think we can now count EDF out apart from Sizewell C, so the government should commit to two RR SMR power stations at a single site as a proof of concept – I’m not suggesting we fund these, but proactively support the project to achieve this and RR have been asking for something similar. The government should also consider raising the two Horizon Nuclear projects from the grave, the ABWR design is UK approved and they have – as our host has said numerous times – an enviable track record of fast construction.
Energy security;
Affordability;
Intermittent ‘Renewables’;
The laws of physics/nature state … you can only choose any two from that list.
Indeed. But instead of “de-carbonisation” we should have “sustainability” and even if we focus on carbon, there are legitimate ways of reducing carbon and its associated harms (eg the particulates from coal) without relying on intermittent renewables. For example, gas is lower carbon then coal, and nuclear is zero carbon…
“if we focus on carbon, there are legitimate ways of reducing carbon and its associated harms (eg the particulates from coal)”
“For example, gas is lower carbon then coal , and nuclear is zero carbon…”
Absolutely, gas is also zero carbon (C).
When methane (CH4) mixed with the proper amount of oxygen (O2) undergoes complete combustion, it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) vapor … **No carbon (C)**
We need to use the correct terminology not politico-speak !
Carbon (C) is a solid element;
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an inorganic gaseous compound.
Ps, thanks for the work you do.
regards J
Sorry, of course “gas” also includes CO2. Apologies for the lazy use of words…
Kathryn another great post putting the issues across succinctly. I shout at the television and the various podcasts i listen to over the energy crisis which is why ive given up with Newsnight (over Tory election) so missed your piece on that. I watched the whole section and the presenter clearly articulated the capacity threat (did you brief them?). It struck me the ex BEIS chap just didn’t get it hopefully his replacement is more switched on.
Anyhow i entirely agree with your solutions and its very frustrating that the politicians just talk about chucking money at the problem rather than adopt a different approach. Everyone of those solutions should be implemented but you get the feeling that everything’s too difficult for the govt and if they let OFGEM lead it we will have years of consultations. Personally i favour scrapping the cap, removing the SOLR and all environmental levies from standing charges and unit rates including business supplies.
Also I wish people would explain the cap figure is just the cost of OFGEM imaginary household and actually be clear all this does is set the unit rate and people thus can help themselves by reducing their energy usage by simple measures. As ive said before we will see demand destruction at these rates unless the govt is going to completely neutralise the cost increase. You can see pubs will open on less days as will cinemas restaurants etc which might just help save from the capacity crunch. On which how much risk are we with CCGTs having to be turned down if domestic gas demand is high due to a cold snap?
The ex-BEIS guy now works for Aurora. Aurora does a lot of work for BEIS so it doesn’t surprise me to hear him repeating the BEIS party line about diverse energy sources etc etc.
I still think that we will be OK on gas supply although it will be expensive….we don’t need to buy all the available gas and outbid everyone else, we only need to buy enough gas and outbid enough people. Absent an unexpected infrastructure problem I think the volumes will be there. My worries are much more for the electricity market when wind output is low…
I’ve looked at some of the work by Aurora (and Afry, formerly Pýory) for BEIS, OFGEM and the CCC. Frankly it’s of shatteringly poor standard and fails to analyse problems properly. It does give the answers the greens want to hear. Almost none of it (at least in the public domain) considers costs, and feasibility is rarely properly considered, so their are gross underestimates of assets required, demand, etc. It’s unicorns all the way down..
” how much risk are we with CCGTs having to be turned down if domestic gas demand is high due to a cold snap?”
It’s kind of a self regulating feedback … if the electric goes off most domestic gas heating fails – so domestic gas demand drops !!!
I admire your excellent posts and your willingness to stick your head above the parapet with what seem to be commonly regarded as heretical views. It is easy to blame politicians but where are all the critical comments and analysis from engineers, academics and the media. Unfortunately politicians usually follow rather than lead. For the last five years I have been trying to raise these issues in my own small way and have gained little traction. The current price crisis has however made everyone more receptive and I persist. Finding words insufficient I have developed a simple simulation that allows people to make choices of future electricity generating options and see the outcomes. The issues are simple and readily understood.
A slow motion disaster is building that is very predictable and very stoppable. Why are we following a path where “success is uncertain” (NGESO)?
Couple of points from an ex-UK in Canada. Seeing signs now that some people and government people here are starting to see that having intermittent weather-dependent generation in electricity grids is a really bad idea which achieves nothing.
Secondly that atmospheric CO2 at only around 0.042% cannot be a controlling factor of the climate and UN/IPCC reports are not based on reliable or correct science. There is no need to be concerned about CO2 emissions, or use of fossil fuels or to go down the decarbonization/NetZero path which could be disastrous to the UK economy and standard of living etc.
The are reported to be huge natural gas fields in parts of UK, so these should be quickly activated by the government to reverse their perverse anti-fracking position. Surely most UK people would now see why this is needed for security of natural gas supply throughout the country.
UK media, especially BBC and Guardian are so fixedly “green is great” and “fossil fuels/CO2 is bad” oriented that it seems a huge chunk of the population and all political parties have been brainwashed into following this. Will probably take a long time before this changes, but it will have to change
The Chinese are claiming to be able to build coal-fired power stations in two yeara, which is quick. 5 stations with a total output of 6.7GW. Can we have some in the UK please.
Chinese media website: https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-08-18/exclusive-guangdong-to-kick-off-67-million-kilowatts-of-coal-power-projects-101927602.html
Congratulations on the big media breakthrough. To get both Newsnight and Farage is a considerable coup. We desperately need sane voices like yours getting a wide hearing.
You’ve written a very comprehensive policy shopping list. I think some of it will have to wait. With REMA now revving up for takeoff I don’t see a rush job on reforming the whole market against many contracts already in place as a feasible immediate option. It’s easier to zero some of the subsidies. Likewise I think companies would sue if the government tries to change the terms on CFD contracts that include exactly that provision. I fear REMA will prove expensive as everyone with protections built into their renewables contracts will look for compensation.
I don’t disagree on market reform, but I think there could be some “easy” wins on the CfD at least. If I were in Government I would be saying to these generators – activate your CfDs or we will legislate to make you and back-date it. By doing it yourselves you can claim the political credit but this is going to happen one way or another.
I don’t think the generators would win in court – when generators tried to get a judicial review of the removal of embedded benefits, one of the legal arguments was that having benefitted from windfall gains in the past does not entitle you to benefit from them in future – apparently there was some VAT case which set the precendent. While this is potentially a bit different, I’m not sure that companies would want the rep risk of fighting to not change a contractual feature that only exists due to an oversight not a deliberate choice…