Producing power requires energy

UK Energy Price Guarantee Cost forecasts from Cornwall Insight suggest an £89bn bill, tied to wholesale gas prices, OBR projections, and fiscal policy, to shield households amid the cost of living crisis.

Key Points

It is the projected government spend to cap household bills, driven by wholesale gas prices and OBR market forecasts.

✅ Base case: £89bn over two years, per Cornwall Insight

✅ Range: £72bn to £140bn, volatile wholesale gas costs

✅ Excludes 6-month business support estimated at £22bn-£48bn

Liz Truss’s intervention to freeze energy prices for households for two years is expected to cost the government £89bn, according to the first major costing of the policy by the sector’s leading consultancy.

The analysis from Cornwall Insight, seen exclusively by the Guardian, shows the prime minister’s plan to tackle the cost of living crisis could cost as much as £140bn in a worst-case scenario.

Truss announced in early September that the average annual bill for a typical household would be capped at £2,500 to protect consumers from the intensifying cost of living crisis amid high winter energy costs and a scheduled 80% rise in the cap to £3,549.

The ultimate cost of the policy is uncertain as it is highly dependent on the wholesale cost of gas, including UK natural gas prices which have soared since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine put a squeeze on already-volatile international markets. Ballpark projections had put the cost anywhere from £100bn to £150bn.

The Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to give its forecast for the bill when it provides its independent assessment of Kwasi Kwarteng’s medium-term fiscal plan, which the chancellor said on Tuesday would still happen on 23 November despite previous reports that it would be brought forward.

Cornwall Insight analysed projections of wholesale market moves to cost the intervention. In its base case scenario, analysts expect the policy to cost £89bn. That assumes the cost of supporting each household would be just over £1,000 in the first year, and about £2,000 in the second year.

The study’s authors said the wholesale price of gas would be influenced by energy demand, the severity of weather, “geo-political uncertainty” and prices for liquified natural gas as Europe seeks to refill storage facilities, which countries have rushed to fill up this winter but which could be relatively empty by next spring.

In the best-case outcome, the policy would cost £72bn, with some projections pointing to a 16% decrease in energy bills in April for households, while the “extreme high” outlook would see the government shell out £140bn to protect 29m UK households.

Gas prices are expected to push even higher if the Kremlin decides to completely cut off Russian gas exports into Europe.

Cornwall Insight’s projection does not include a separate six-month initiative to cap costs for companies, charities and public sector organisations, which is forecast to cost £22bn to £48bn.

The consultancy’s chief executive, Gareth Miller, said the £70bn range in its forecasts reflected “a febrile wholesale market continuing to be beset by geopolitical instability, sensitivity to demand, weather and infrastructure resilience”.

He said: “Fortune befriends the bold, but it also favours the prepared. The large uncertainties around commodity markets over the next two years means that the government could get lucky with costs coming out at the low end of the range, but the opposite could also be true.

“In each case, the government may find itself passengers to circumstances outside its control, having made policy that is a hostage to surprises, events and volatile factors. That’s a difficult position to be in.”

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The government has faced criticism, as some British MPs urge tighter limits on prices, that the policy is effectively a “blank cheque” and is not targeted at the most vulnerable in society.

Concerns over how Truss and Kwarteng intend to fund a series of measures, including the price guarantee, have spooked financial markets.

The EU, which has outlined possible gas price cap strategies in recent proposals, said last week it planned to cap the revenues of low-carbon electricity generators at €180 a megawatt hour, which is less than half current market prices. Truss has so far resisted calls to extend a levy on North Sea oil and gas operators to electricity generators, who have benefited from a link between gas and electricity prices in Britain.

Truss hopes to strike voluntary long-term deals with generators including Centrica and EDF, alongside the government’s Energy Security Bill measures, to bring down wholesale prices.

The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that the government has threatened companies with legislation to cap their revenues if voluntary deals cannot be agreed.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ukraine Power Grid Restoration accelerates across liberated Kharkiv, restoring electricity, heat, and water amid missile and drone strikes, demining operations, blackouts, and winterization efforts, showcasing resilience, emergency repairs, and critical infrastructure recovery.

Key Points

Ukraine's rapid push to repair war-damaged grids, restore heat and water, and stabilize key services before winter.

✅ Priority repairs restore electricity and water in liberated Kharkiv.

✅ Crews de-mine lines and work under shelling, drones, and missiles.

✅ Winterization adds generators, mobile stoves, and large firewood supplies.

On the freshly liberated battlefields of northeast Ukraine, a pile of smashed glass windows outside one Soviet-era block of apartments attests to the violence of six months of Russian occupation, and of Ukraine’s sweeping recent military advances.

Indoors, in cramped apartments, residents lived in the dark for weeks on end.

Now, with a hard winter looming, they marvel at the speed and urgency with which Ukrainian officials have restored another key ingredient to their survival: electric power, a critical effort to keep the lights on this winter across communities.

Among those things governments strive to provide are security, opportunity, and minimal comfort. With winter approaching, and Russia targeting Ukraine’s infrastructure, add to that list heat and light, even as Russia hammers power plants nationwide. It’s requiring a concerted effort.

“Thank God it works! Electricity is civilization – it is everything,” says Antonina Krasnokutska, a retired medical worker, looking affectionately at the lightbulb that came on the day before, and now burns again in her tiny spotless kitchen.

“Without electricity there is no TV, no news, no clothes washing, no charging the phone,” says Ms. Krasnokutska, her gray hair pulled back and a small crucifix around her neck.

“Before, it was like living in the Stone Age,” says her grown son, Serhii Krasnokutskyi, who is more than a head taller. “As soon as it got dark, everyone would go to sleep.”

He shows a picture on his phone from a few days earlier, of a tangle of phone and computer charging cables – including his – plugged in at a local shop with a generator.

“We are very grateful for the people who repaired this electricity, even with shelling continuing,” he says. “They have a very complicated job.”

Indeed, although a lack of power might have been a novel inconvenience during the warm summer season, it increasingly has become a matter of great urgency for Ukrainian citizens and officials.

Coping through Ukraine’s winter with dignity and any degree of security will require courage and perseverance, as the severity and suffering that the season can bring here are being weaponized by Russia, as it seeks to compensate for a string of battlefield losses.

In recent days, Russian attacks have specifically targeted Ukraine’s electrical and other civilian infrastructure – all with the apparent aim of making this winter as hard as possible for Ukrainians, even as Moscow employs other measures to spread the hardship across Europe, while Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts through grid support.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday that Russian barrages across the country with missiles and Iran-supplied kamikaze drones had destroyed 30% of Ukraine’s power stations in the previous eight days, including strikes on western Ukraine that caused outages. Thousands of towns have been left without electricity.

Kharkiv’s challenges
Emblematic of the national challenge is the one facing officials in the northeast Kharkiv region, where Ukraine recaptured more than 3,000 square miles in a September counteroffensive. Ukrainian forces are still making gains on that front, as well as in the south toward Kherson, where Wednesday Russia started evacuating civilians from the first major city it occupied, after launching its three-pronged invasion last February.

Across the Kharkiv region, Ukrainians are stockpiling as much wood, fuel, and food as possible while they still can, and adopting new energy solutions as they prepare, from sources as diverse as the floorboards of destroyed schools and the pine forests in Izium, which are pockmarked with abandoned Russian trenches adjacent to a mass burial site.

“Of course, we have this race against time,” says Serhii Mahdysyuk, the Kharkiv regional director in charge of housing, services, fuel, and energy. “Unfortunately, we probably stand in front of the biggest challenge in Ukraine.”

That is not only because of the scale of liberated territory, he says, but also because the Kharkiv region shares a long border with Russia, as well as with the Russian-controlled areas of the eastern Donbas.

“It’s a great mixture of all threats, and we are sure that shelling and bombings will continue, but we are ready for this,” says Mr. Mahdysyuk. “We know our weak spots that Russia can destroy, but we are prepared for what to do in these situations.”

Ukraine’s battlefield gains have meant a surging need to pick up the pieces after Russian occupation, even as electricity reserves are holding if no new strikes occur, to ensure habitable conditions as more and more surviving residents require services, and as others return to scenes of devastation.

Restoring electricity is the top priority, amid shifting international assistance such as the end of U.S. grid support, because that often restarts running water, too, says Mr. Mahdysyuk. But before that, the area beneath broken power lines must be de-mined.

Indeed, members of an electricity team reconnecting cables on the outskirts of Balakliia – one of the first towns to see power restored, at the end of September – say they lost two fellow workers in the previous two weeks. One died after stepping on an anti-personnel mine, another when his vehicle hit an anti-tank device.

Ukrainian electricity workers restore power lines damaged during six months of Russian military occupation in Balakliia, Ukraine, Sept. 29, 2022. Ukrainians in liberated territory say the restoration of the electrical grid, and with it often the water supply, is a return to civilization.
“For now, our biggest problem is mines,” says the team leader, who gave the name Andrii. “It’s fine within the cities, but in the fields it’s a disaster because it’s very difficult to see them. There is a lot of [them] around here – it will take years and years to get rid of.”

Yet officials only have a few weeks to execute plans to provide for hundreds of thousands of residents in this region, in their various states of need and distress. Some 50 field kitchens capable of feeding 200 to 300 people each have been ordered. Another 1,000 mobile stoves are on their way.

And authorities will provide nearly 200,000 cubic yards of firewood for those who have no access to it, and may have no other means of keeping warm – or where shelling continues to disrupt repairs, says Mr. Mahdysyuk.

“The level of opportunity and resources we have is not the same as the level of destruction,” he says. People in districts and buildings too destroyed to have services restored soon, such as in Saltivka in Kharkiv city, may be moved.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Kenya Power token glitches, inflated bills disrupt prepaid meters via M-Pesa paybill 888880 and third-party vendors like Vendit and Dynamo, causing delays, fast-depleting tokens, and billing estimates; customers report weekend outages and business losses.

Key Points

Service failures delaying token generation and disputed charges from estimated meter readings and slow processing.

✅ Impacts M-Pesa paybill 888880 and authorized third-party vendors

✅ Causes delays, fast-depleting tokens, weekend business closures

✅ Linked to system downtime, billing estimates, meter reading gaps

Kenya Power is again on the spotlight following claims of inflated power bills and a glitch in its electronic payment system that made it impossible to top up tokens on prepaid meters.

Thousands of customers started experiencing the hitch in tokens generation on Friday evening, with the problem extending through the weekend.

Small businesses such as barber shops that top up multiple times a week were hardest hit.

“My business usually thrives during weekends but I was forced to close early in the evening due to lack of power although I had paid for the tokens that were never generated,” said Mr John Kamau, a fast food restaurant owner in Nairobi.

Kenya Power processes up to 200,000 electronic transactions per day for power users, with 85 per cent done through its Safaricom M-Pesa paybill number 888880.

The remaining share is handled by its authorised third party vendors such as Vendit (paybill number 501200) and Dynamo (800904), which charge a premium for the transaction.

The sole electricity distributor admitted its system encountered challenges that crippled token generation across all vendors, advising customers on prepaid meters to buy the units from Kenya Power banking halls across the country until normalcy returned.

STATEMENT

“The IT team is trying to figure out where the problem was before we issue a comprehensive statement on the issue,” the firm responded to Nation queries, adding that the issue had been resolved by yesterday afternoon.

Customers who use Vendit confirmed to Nation they had successfully bought tokens yesterday afternoon.

However, there have been complaints that third party vendors process tokens almost in real time, unlike Kenya Power which, despite indicating a 30 minute delay in its service promise, sometimes takes up to six hours.  

But other users complained of inflated power bills after being slapped with abnormally high charges.

TOKENS

The holder of account number 30624694, for instance, received a post-paid bill of Sh16,765 last month, up from Sh894 the previous month.

She indulged the company and ended up paying just over Sh1,000.

There have also been complaints of tokens getting depleted too fast. For instance, one customer who normally uses Sh4,000 per month complained of her credit running out in a week.

Kenya Power maintains it cannot read all post-paid meters across the country, compelling it to make estimates for a number of customers.

The company argues it is not cost-effective to have meter readers go to all homes. The firm recently indicated plans to put all domestic consumers on prepaid meters to reduce non-payment of electricity bills and cut operation costs on meter reading and postage.

POWER CONSUMPTION

The Nairobi Securities Exchange-listed firm has also adopted a new integrated customer management system to enable consumers to self-check their power consumption and understand their electricity bill and payment obligations through a phone app.

In the past, concerns have been rife that customers often encounter delays when buying tokens through paybill number 888880, unlike through other vendors.

This has raised questions on the ownership of the vendors and the cash commissions they are entitled to, with holiday scam warnings circulating in some markets as well.

FOUL PLAY

Kenya Power has, however, denied any foul play, saying the authorisation of other vendors was to ease pressure on its payment channel, which handles 85 per cent of the nearly 200,000 transactions per day.

“In fact we have 11 vendors, including Equitel, it’s just that people are only aware of Vendit and Dynamo because they have been aggressive in their marketing,” the company said.

Kenya Power has been battling court cases over inflated power bills after it emerged that the utility firm was backdating bills worth Sh10.1 billion from last November.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Texas Electricity Prices are shifting as deregulation matures, with competitive market shopping lowering residential rates, narrowing gaps with regulated areas, and EIA data showing long term declines versus national averages across most Texans.

Key Points

Texas Electricity Prices are average residential rates in deregulated and regulated markets across the state.

✅ Deregulated areas saw 17.4% residential price declines since 2006

✅ Regulated zones experienced a 5.5% increase over the same period

✅ Competitive shopping narrowed the gap; Texas averaged below US

Shopping for electricity is becoming cheaper for most Texans, according to a new study from the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power. But for those who live in an area with only one electricity provider, prices have increased in a recent 10-year period, the study says.

About 85 percent of Texans can purchase electricity from a number of providers in a deregulated marketplace, while the remaining 15 percent must buy power from a single provider, often an electric cooperative, in their area.

The report from the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, which advocates for cities and local governments and negotiates their power contracts, pulls information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to compare prices for Texans in the two models. Most Texans could begin choosing their electricity provider in 2002.

Buying power tends to be more expensive for Texans who live in a part of the state with a deregulated electricity market. But that gap is continuing to shrink as Texans become more willing to shop for power, even as electricity complaints have periodically risen. In 2015, the gap “was the smallest since the beginning of deregulation,” according to the report.

Between 2006 and 2015, the last year for which data is available, average residential electric prices for Texans in a competitive market decreased by 17.4 percent, while average prices increased by 5.5 percent in the regulated areas, even as the Texas power grid has periodically faced stress.

“These residential price declines are promising, and show the retail electric market is maturing,” Jay Doegey, executive director for the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, said in a statement. “We’re encouraged by the price declines, but more progress is needed.”

The study attributes the decline to the prevalence of “low-priced individual deals” in the competitive areas, while policymakers consider market reforms to bolster reliability.

Overall, the average price of electricity in Texas (which produces and consumes the most electricity in the U.S.) — including the price in the deregulated marketplace, for the third time in four years — was below the national average in 2015.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

CO2 Tax for UK Offshore Energy Efficiency can accelerate adoption of aero-derivative gas turbines, flare gas recovery, and combined cycle power, reducing emissions on platforms like Equinor's Mariner and supporting net zero goals.

Key Points

A carbon price pushing operators to adopt efficient turbines, flare recovery, and combined cycle to cut emissions.

✅ Aero-derivative turbines beat industrial units on efficiency

✅ Flare gas recovery cuts routine flaring and fuel waste

✅ Combined cycle raises efficiency and lowers emissions

By Tom Baxter

The recent Energy Voice article from the Equinor chairman concerning the Mariner project heralding a ‘significant point of reference’ for growth highlighted the energy efficiency achievements associated with the platform.

I view energy efficiency as a key enabler to net zero, and alongside this the UK must start large-scale storage to meet system needs; it is a topic I have been involved with for many years.

As part of my energy efficiency work, I investigated Norwegian practices and compared them with the UK.

There were many differences, here are three;

1. Power for offshore installations is usually supplied from gas turbines burning fuel from the oil and gas processing plant, and even as the UK's offshore wind supply accelerates, installations convert that to electricity or couple the gas turbine to a machine such as a gas compressor.

There are two main generic types of gas turbine – aero-derivative and industrial. As the name implies aero-derivatives are aviation engines used in a static environment. Aero-derivative turbines are designed to be energy efficient as that is very import for the aviation industry.

Not so with industrial type gas turbines; they are typically 5-10% less efficient than a comparable aero-derivative.

Industrial machines do have some advantages – they can be cheaper, require less frequent maintenance, they have a wide fuel composition tolerance and they can be procured within a shorter time frame.

My comparison showed that aero-derivative machines prevailed in Norway because of the energy efficiency advantages – not the case in the UK where there are many more offshore industrial gas turbines.

Tom Baxter is visiting professor of chemical engineering at Strathclyde University and a retired technical director at Genesis Oil and Gas Consultants

2. Offshore gas flaring is probably the most obvious source of inefficient use of energy with consequent greenhouse gas emissions.

On UK installations gas is always flared due to the design of the oil and gas processing plant.

Though not a large quantity of gas, a continuous flow of gas is routinely sent to flare from some of the process plant.

In addition the flare requires pilot flames to be maintained burning at all times and, while Europe explores electricity storage in gas pipes, a purge of hydrocarbon gas is introduced into the pipes to prevent unsafe air ingress that could lead to an explosive mixture.

On many Norwegian installations the flare system is designed differently. Flare gas recovery systems are deployed which results in no flaring during continuous operations.

Flare gas recovery systems improve energy efficiency but they are costly and add additional operational complexity.

3. Returning to gas turbines, all UK offshore gas turbines are open cycle – gas is burned to produce energy and the very hot exhaust gases are vented to the atmosphere. Around 60 -70% of the energy is lost in the exhaust gases.

Some UK fields use this hot gas as a heat source for some of the oil and gas treatment operations hence improving energy efficiency.

There is another option for gas turbines that will significantly improve energy efficiency – combined cycle, and in parallel plans for nuclear power under the green industrial revolution aim to decarbonise supply.

Here the exhaust gases from an open cycle machine are taken to a separate turbine. This additional turbine utilises exhaust heat to produce steam with the steam used to drive a second turbine to generate supplementary electricity. It is the system used in most UK power stations, even as UK low-carbon generation stalled in 2019 across the grid.

Open cycle gas turbines are around 30 – 40% efficient whereas combined cycle turbines are typically 50 – 60%. Clearly deploying a combined cycle will result in a huge greenhouse gas saving.

I have worked on the development of many UK oil and gas fields and combined cycle has rarely been considered.

The reason being is that, despite the clear energy saving, they are too costly and complex to justify deploying offshore.

However that is not the case in Norway where combined cycle is used on Oseberg, Snorre and Eldfisk.

What makes the improved Norwegian energy efficiency practices different from the UK – the answer is clear; the Norwegian CO2 tax.

A tax that makes CO2 a significant part of offshore operating costs.

The consequence being that deploying energy efficient technology is much easier to justify in Norway when compared to the UK.

Do we need a CO2 tax in the UK to meet net zero – I am convinced we do. I am in good company. BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Total are supporting a carbon tax.

Not without justification there has been much criticism of Labour’s recent oil tax plans, alongside proposals for state-owned electricity generation that aim to reshape the power market.

To my mind Labour’s laudable aims to tackle the Climate Emergency would be much better served by supporting a CO2 tax that complements the UK's coal-free energy record by strengthening renewable investment.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News