Energy customers foot the bill for failed climate policy 

Posted: November 1, 2017 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, government, ideology, Incompetence, Politics
Tags: ,

Not only do we have a bad policy, we have a badly implemented bad policy, as the GWPF explains.

Dr John Constable, GWPF’s Energy Editor, contributed a “Thunderer” column to The Times on the 27th of October 2017 commenting on Professor Helm’s recent study for the UK government on the cost of energy (“Energy customers foot the bill for failed climate policy”).

Subsidies to renewable electricity in the UK cost £5 billion a year at present and will rise to more than £8 billion a year by 2020, all drawn from the bills of domestic and business consumers.

One third of this hits households directly through their electricity bills — about 20 per cent of the bill in fact — while the other two thirds, paid in the first instance by businesses, is passed on to households in the general cost of living.

Government has obfuscated these facts, and since 2014 has published no price impacts. When costs could not be hidden, the government has claimed that climate policy made them unavoidable.

Now, in an authoritative and excoriating report commissioned by the government, Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, has torn away the fig leaves covering the government’s nakedness. Policy interventions, he tells us, are so numerous and badly designed that they have resulted in costs well in excess of what is needed to meet emissions targets. These subsidies will cost a hair-raising £100 billion by 2030.

“Much more decarbonisation could have been achieved for less,” Professor Helm drily observes. Sadly, as the study emphasises, much of this wasteful policy cannot be cancelled, due to “contractual and other legal commitments”. In other words, government has given the rent-seekers firm entitlements that the courts must defend.

Did the civil servants explain these liabilities to the responsible ministers, and if so why was the consumer interest neglected, and why were such bad deals struck, again and again and again? Because, as Professor Helm does not hesitate to tell us: “Government has got into the business of ‘picking winners’. Unfortunately, losers are good at picking governments, and inevitably — as in most such picking-winners strategies — the results end up being vulnerable to lobbying, to the general detriment of household and industrial customers.”

Continued here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    The latest bad joke policy is the wild goose chase of carbon capture and storage.

  2. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    The joys of ineptitude

  3. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Do consumers really have no recourse? Did the bureaucrats mislead their Ministers when this poisonous legislation was mooted, or were the Ministers complicit? Is there no precedence (in the history of one of the world’s oldest parliaments) for bringing to heel a Parliament that acts against the interest of its constituency? If not, whither British parliamentary democracy?

  4. oldbrew says:

    Here’s the problem…

    The Climate Change Act 2008 (c 27) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act makes it the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for all six Kyoto greenhouse gases for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline, toward avoiding dangerous climate change. The Act aims to enable the United Kingdom to become a low-carbon economy and gives ministers powers to introduce the measures necessary to achieve a range of greenhouse gas reduction targets. An independent Committee on Climate Change has been created under the Act to provide advice to UK Government on these targets and related policies.

    Every time ministers ‘introduce measures’ the cost goes on electricity bills. Everyone knows this so waffling about keeping bills down is meaningless at best.

  5. p.g.sharrow says:

    The use of Government to steal wealth is as old as government. Those that make it their business to lobby Bureaucrats and politicians for these special favors, know that this is the way to acquire vast wealth unearned in a “legal”manner. They also know that these people are easy to sway with slick fast talk arguments, favors, and praise.
    By law bureaucrats and politicians are treated as mental incompetents as neither they or their agency can be held responsible for their actions. Yet they are the ones that strive to Rule our lives..
    We don’t need them…pg

  6. oldbrew says:

    …global cooling…global warming…??? Climate hobgoblins galore…


    The History Of The Modern ‘Climate Change’ Scam

  7. ivan says:

    Would the total repeal of the 2008 Climate Change Act make all of the subsidies null and void? If so why hasn’t it been done or do the greens know where the bodies are buried?

  8. oldbrew says:

    ivan – almost no political will exists among MPs to repeal it, AFAIK. Maybe a few, but that’s it.

  9. BoyfromTottenham says:

    Oldbrew, so the parliament passes an Act that can be fairly interpreted as an economic suicide note, and not only do they not pay a penalty for their stupidity, but they force one class (the domestic electricity consumer) to pay for it? I’m so glad that my parents had the sense to pay 10 pounds to emigrate to Australia 50 years ago!

  10. oldbrew says:

    The public are starting to catch on, and that’s one thing most MPs have to listen to – or they could be out of a job at the next election.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Wind turbine rotor blades destined for landfill [2014]

    Storm, Price-Collapse “Expose Madness Of Energiewende” …
    By P Gosselin on 1. November 2017

    The online Die Welt reports that storm “Herwart” which swept across Germany late last month – with wind gusts of up to 140 kilometers per hour – led to a wholesale electricity “price collapse” and thus “exposed the madness of the Energiewende“.

    “Negative prices”

    As storm Herwart waged, wind parks across Germany over-flooded electricity grids with power that was not needed, and thus forced electricity prices on the exchange to go deep into negative levels within just minutes. In a nutshell: grid operators were forced to pay to get rid of the surplus power. But that payment won’t go to consumers, as Die Welt writes:

    “The consumers get no benefit from this. For them it will even be more expensive.”

  12. oldbrew says:

    Fuel Bank – 2 years of making a difference

    Times are tough: 13 million people in the UK live below the poverty line, and 950,000 UK households are in Income Crisis & can’t pay 2 or more essential bills.
    . . .
    Anyone with a pre-payment meter who gets referred to a participating food bank could qualify for a voucher to provide enough credit for around 2 weeks of energy. And as you can see from the comments below, it’s making a huge difference…

  13. oldbrew says:

    One more time – carbon capture is an expensive dud.

    Date: 05/11/17 CBC News

    Following SaskPower saying it is unlikely to recommend government pursue more carbon capture and storage projects because of the high cost, critics are saying pursuing carbon capture and storage was uneconomical from the start.

    “It’s not economic, and it was clear at the time it wasn’t economic,” said former SaskWind president James Glennie.

    “It cost $140 per megawatt hour,” to produce electricity with carbon capture and storage technology at a coal-fired plant, he said.

    “Clearly, then, it wasn’t economic even at the time if that’s what it cost, because that’s substantially more than wind cost back when the investment decision was taken.”

    Another non-solution to a non-problem.