Thursday, 12 December 2013


The recent self generated row over the green levies is a classic attempt to distract people’s attention away from the realities of energy subsidies.  As the Con Dem government denounces proposals for a two-year price freeze as "socialism" the Westminster government has guaranteed EDF and Chinese state investors in the nuclear sector fixed above average prices for energy the next 35 years.

The small print of the deal for the new nuclear power station at Hinkley guarantees the French-owned EDF and Chinese state investors a strike price of £92.50 per MegaWatt Hour (or £89.50 if a second plant is built), this is around twice the current market rate for wholesale energy. This price per unit will rise in line with inflation and is being guaranteed for 35 years – so much of the ‘free market’.

The real irony is that in the event of wholesale prices falling or rising at a slower rate than expected, then it is we, the public who will pick up the tab in the form of higher taxes or higher bills. The Energy Institute at University College London has estimated that the annual public subsidy will be around £ 800 million to - £ 1 billion pounds. This is on-top of the current £ 2.3 billion pound annual subsidy most of which ends up as a form of funding to deal with legacy nuclear waste.

The problem is that we all face is significantly down to the cumulative effect of an almost unregulated energy market and the unscrupulous activities of the ‘Big 6’ energy cartel members who will continue to maximise their profits at our expense because they simply can get away with it. The three Westminster based political parties have dropped any pretence of trying to regulate the energy market, to curb excessive profiteering or even to attempt any long term energy planning.

There is no quick fix, as energy efficiency schemes install insulation help to reduce carbon emissions and reduce fuel energy bills over the long term rather than the short term. If green levies are to be reduced, and I don’t think that they should be, then energy efficiency and fuel poverty reduction schemes should be paid for out of (progressive) general taxation - with the burden placed on higher end of the income bracket.

No comments:

Post a Comment