New material makes electricity from waste heat

Canada Manufacturing Policy prioritizes affordable energy, trims carbon taxes, aligns with Buy America, and supports the resource sector, PPE and plastics supply, nearshoring, and resilient supply chains amid COVID-19, correcting costly green energy policies.

Key Points

A policy to boost industry with affordable energy, lower carbon taxes, resource ties, and aligned U.S. trade.

✅ Cuts energy costs and carbon tax burdens for competitiveness

✅ Rebuilds resource-sector linkages and domestic supply chains

✅ Seeks Buy America relief and clarity on plastics regulation

By Jocelyn Bamford

Since its inception in 2017, the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses has warned all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects if policies that drove both the manufacturing and natural resources sectors out of the country were adopted.

The very origins of our coalition was in the fight for a competitive landscape in Ontario, a cornerstone of which is affordable energy and sounding the alarm that the Green Energy Policy in Ontario pushed many manufacturers out of the province.

The Green Energy Policy made electricity in Ontario four times the average North American rate. These unjust prices were largely there to subsidize the construction of expensive and inefficient wind and solar energy infrastructure, even as cleaning up Canada's grid is cited as critical to meeting climate pledges.

My company’s November hydro bill was $55,000 and $36,500 of that was the so-called global adjustment charge, the name given to these green energy costs.

Unaffordable electricity, illustrated by higher Alberta power costs in recent years, coupled with ever-more burdensome carbon taxes, have pushed Canadian manufacturing into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract business.

One can’t help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with a lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this pandemic?  If our manufacturing sector wasn’t crippled by taxes and regulation, would it be more nimble and able to respond to a national emergency?

It seems that the federal government’s policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector, and kill the very plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients, and citizens safe, even as the net-zero race accelerates federally.

As the federal government chased its obsession with a new green economy – a strange obsession given our country’s small contribution to global GHGs – including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 advocated by some leaders, it has been blinded from the real threats to our country, threats that became very, very real with COVID-19.

After the pandemic has passed, the federal government must work to make Canada manufacturing and resource friendly again, recognizing that the IEA net-zero electricity report projects the need for more power. COVID-19 proves that Canada relies on a robust resource economy and manufacturing sector to survive. We need to ensure that we are prepared for future crises like the one we are facing now.

Here are five things our government can do now to meet that end:

1. End all carbon taxes immediately.

2. Create a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax regimes.

3. Recognize the interconnections between the resource sector and manufacturing, including how fossil-fuel workers support the transition across supply chains. Many manufacturers supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and they rely on affordable energy to compete globally.

4. Stop the current federal government initiative to label plastic as toxic. At a time when the government is appealing to manufacturers to re-tool and produce needed plastic products for the health care sector, labelling plastics as toxic is counterproductive.

5. Work to secure a Canadian exemption to Buy America. This crisis has clearly shown us that dependency on China is dangerous. We must forge closer ties with America and work as a trading block in order to be more self-sufficient.

These are troubling times. Many businesses will not survive.

We need to take back our manufacturing sector.  We need to take back our resource sector.

We need to understand the interconnected nature of these two important segments of our gross domestic production, and opportunities like an Alberta–B.C. grid link to strengthen reliability.
If we do not, in the next pandemic we may find ourselves not only without ventilators, masks and gowns but also without energy to operate our hospitals.

Jocelyn Bamford is a Toronto business executive and President of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

North Carolina Utility Arrears Crisis strains households and municipal budgets as COVID-19 cuts jobs; unpaid utility bills mount, shutoffs loom, and emergency aid, unemployment benefits, and CARES Act relief lag behind rising arrears across cities.

Key Points

A COVID-19 driven spike in unpaid utility bills, threatening households and municipal budgets as federal aid lapses.

✅ 1 million families behind on power, water, sewage bills

✅ $218M arrears accrued April to June, double last year

✅ Municipal utilities face shutoffs, budget shortfalls

As many as 1 million families in North Carolina have fallen behind on their electric, water and sewage bills, a sign of energy insecurity threatening residents and their cities with severe financial hardship unless federal lawmakers act to approve more emergency aid.

The trouble stems from the widespread economic havoc wrought by the coronavirus, which has left millions of workers out of a job and struggling to cover their monthly costs as some states moved to suspend utility shut-offs to provide relief. Together, they’ve been late or missed a total of $218 million in utility payments between April 1 and the end of June, according to data released recently by the state, nearly double the amount in arrears at this time last year.

In some cases, cities that own or operate their own utilities have been forced to absorb these losses, as some utilities reconnected customers to prevent harm, creating a dire situation in which the government’s attempt to save people from the financial brink instead has pushed municipal coffers to their own breaking point.

In Elizabeth City, N.C., for example, about 2,500 residents haven’t paid their electric bills on time, according to Richard Olson, the city manager. The late payments at one point proved so problematic that Olson said he calculated Elizabeth City wouldn’t have enough money to pay for its expenses in July. In response, city leaders requested and obtained a waiver from a statewide order, similar to New York’s disconnection moratorium, issued in March, that protects people from being penalized for their past-due utility bills.

The predicament has presented unique budget challenges throughout North Carolina, while illustrating the consequences of a cash crunch plaguing the entire country, where proposals such as a Texas electricity market bailout surfaced following severe grid stress. State and federal leaders have extended a range of coronavirus relief programs since March to try to help people through the pandemic. But the money is limited and restricted — and it’s not clear whether more help from Congress is on the way — creating a crisis in which the nation’s economic woes are outpacing some of the aid programs adopted to combat them.

“We are entering a phase where the utilities [may] be able to shut off power, but what was propping up people’s economic lives, the unemployment benefits and Cares Act support, won’t be there,” said Paul Meyer, the executive director of the North Carolina League of Municipalities.

White House, GOP in disarray over coronavirus spending plan as deadline nears on expiring emergency aid

The future of that safety-net support — and other federal aid — hangs in the balance as lawmakers returned to work this week in their final sprint ahead of the August recess. The White House and congressional leaders are split over the contours of the next coronavirus relief package, including the need to extend more aid to cities and states as some utilities have waived fees to help customers, and reauthorize an extra $600 in weekly unemployment payments that were approved as part of the Cares Act in March.

Outside Washington, workers, businesses and government officials nationwide have pleaded with federal lawmakers to renew or expand those programs. Last week, Roy Cooper, the Democratic governor of North Carolina, urged Congress to act swiftly and adopt a wide array of new federal spending, including proposals for DOE nuclear cleanup funding, stressing in a letter that the “actions you take in the next few weeks are vital to our ability to emerge from this crisis. ”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Jay Grewal Manitoba Hydro Appointment marks the first woman CEO at the Crown utility, amid debt, rate increase plans, privatization debate, and Metis legal challenge, following board turmoil and Premier Pallister's strained relations.

Key Points

The selection of Jay Grewal as Manitoba Hydro's first woman CEO amid debt, rate hikes, and legal disputes.

✅ First woman CEO of Manitoba Hydro

✅ Faces debt, rate hikes, and project overruns

✅ Amid privatization debate and Metis legal action

The Manitoba government has appointed a new president and chief executive officer at its Crown-owned energy utility.

Jay Grewal becomes the first woman to head Manitoba Hydro, and takes over the top spot as the utility faces mounting financial challenges, rising electricity demand and turmoil.

Grewal has previously held senior roles at Capstone Mining Corp and B.C. Hydro, and is currently president of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation.

She will replace outgoing president Kelvin Shepherd, who recently announced he is retiring, on Feb. 4.

The utility was hit by the sudden resignations of nine of its 10 board members in March, who said they had been unable to meet with Premier Brian Pallister to discuss pressing issues like servicing energy-intensive customers facing the utility.

Manitoba Hydro is also in the middle of a battle between the Progressive Conservative government and the Manitoba Metis Federation over the cancellation of two agreements that would have given the Metis $87 million.

The federation has launched a legal challenge over one deal and says its likely going to do the same over the second agreement.

Grewal also takes over the utility at a time when it has racked up billions of dollars in debt building new generating stations and transmission lines. Manitoba Hydro has told the provincial regulatory agency it needs rate increases of nearly eight per cent a year for the next few years to help pay for the projects.

The utility also exports electricity, with deals such as SaskPower's purchase agreement expanding sales to Saskatchewan.

"Ms. Grewal is a proven leader, with extensive senior leadership experience in the utility, resource and consulting sectors," Crown Services Minister Colleen Mayer said in a written statement Thursday.

The Opposition New Democrats said Grewal's appointment is a sign the government wants to privatize Manitoba Hydro. Grewal's time at B.C. Hydro coincided with the privatization of some parts of that Crown utility, the NDP said.

The B.C. premier at the time, Gordon Campbell, was recently hired by Manitoba to review two major projects that ran over-budget and have added to the provincial debt.

NDP Leader Wab Kinew asked Pallister in the legislature Thursday to promise not to privatize Manitoba Hydro. Pallister would only point to a law that requires a referendum to be held before a Crown entity can be sold off.

"We stand by that (law)," Pallister said. "We believe Manitobans are the proper decision-makers in respect of any of the future structuring of Manitoba Hydro."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out drives policy amid gas supply risks, Nord Stream 1 shutdown fears, Russia dependency, and energy security planning, as Robert Habeck rejects extending reactors, favoring coal backup, storage, and EU diversification strategies.

Key Points

Ending Germany's last reactors by year end despite gas risks, prioritizing storage, coal backup, and EU diversification.

✅ Reactors' legal certification expires at year end

✅ Minimal gas savings from extending nuclear capacity

✅ Nord Stream 1 cuts amplify energy security risks

Germany’s vice-chancellor has defended the government’s commitment to ending the use of nuclear power at the end of this year, amid fears that Russia may halt natural gas supplies entirely.

Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck, who is also the economy and climate minister and is responsible for energy, argued that keeping the few remaining reactors running would do little to address the problems caused by a possible natural gas shortfall.

“Nuclear power doesn’t help us there at all,” Habeck, said at a news conference in Vienna on Tuesday. “We have a heating problem or an industry problem, but not an electricity problem – at least not generally throughout the country.”

The main gas pipeline from Russia to Germany shut down for annual maintenance on Monday, as Berlin grew concerned that Moscow may not resume the flow of gas as scheduled.

The Nord Stream 1 pipeline, Germany’s main source of Russian gas, is scheduled to be out of action until July 21 for routine work that the operator says includes “testing of mechanical elements and automation systems”.

But German officials are suspicious of Russia’s intentions, particularly after Russia’s Gazprom last month reduced the gas flow through Nord Stream 1 by 60 percent.

Gazprom cited technical problems involving a gas turbine powering a compressor station that partner Siemens Energy sent to Canada for overhaul.

Germany’s main opposition party has called repeatedly to extend nuclear power by keeping the country’s last three nuclear reactors online after the end of December. There is some sympathy for that position in the ranks of the pro-business Free Democrats, the smallest party in Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s governing coalition.

In this year’s first quarter, nuclear energy accounted for 6 percent of Germany’s electricity generation and natural gas for 13 percent, both significantly lower than a year earlier. Germany has been getting about 35 percent of its gas from Russia.

Habeck said the legal certification for the remaining reactors expires at the end of the year and they would have to be treated thereafter as effectively new nuclear plants, complete with safety considerations and the likely “very small advantage” in terms of saving gas would not outweigh the complications.

Fuel for the reactors also would have to be procured and Scholz has said that the fuel rods are generally imported from Russia.

Opposition politicians have argued that Habeck’s environmentalist Green party, which has long strongly supported the nuclear phase-out, is opposing keeping reactors online for ideological reasons, even as some float a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout in response to the energy crisis.

Reducing dependency on Russia
Germany and the rest of Europe are scrambling to fill the gas storage in time for the northern hemisphere winter, even as Europe is losing nuclear power at a critical moment and reduce their dependence on Russian energy imports.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had said it considered nuclear energy dangerous and in January objected to European Union proposals that would let the technology remain part of the bloc’s plans for a climate-friendly future that includes a nuclear option for climate change pathway.

“We consider nuclear technology to be dangerous,” government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit told reporters in Berlin, noting that the question of what to do with radioactive waste that will last for thousands of generations remains unresolved.

While neighbouring France aimed to modernise existing reactors, Germany stayed on course to switch off its remaining three nuclear power plants at the end of this year and phase out coal by 2030.

Last month, Germany’s economy minister said the country would limit the use of natural gas for electricity production and make a temporary recourse to coal generation to conserve gas.

“It’s bitter but indispensable for reducing gas consumption,” Robert Habeck said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Great British Energy could cut UK electricity costs via public ownership, investing in clean energy like wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear, curbing windfall profits, stabilizing bills, and reinvesting returns through a state-backed generator.

Key Points

A proposed state-backed UK generator investing in clean power to cut costs and return gains to taxpayers.

✅ Publicly owned investment in wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear

✅ Cuts electricity bills by reducing generators' windfall profits

✅ Funded via bonds or asset buyouts; non-profit operations

A publicly owned electricity generation firm could save Britons nearly £21bn a year, according to new analysis that bolsters Labour’s case to launch a national energy company if the party gains power.

Thinktank Common Wealth has calculated that the cost of generating electricity to power homes and businesses could be reduced by £20.8bn or £252 per household a year under state ownership, according to a report seen by the Guardian.

The Labour leader, Keir Starmer, has committed to creating “a publicly owned national champion in clean energy” named Great British Energy.

Starmer is yet to lay out the exact structure of the mooted company, although he has said it would not involve nationalising existing assets, or become involved in the transmission grid or retail supply of energy.

Starmer instead hopes to create a state-backed entity that would invest in clean energy – wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, large-scale storage and other emerging technologies – creating jobs and ensuring windfalls from the growth in low carbon power feed back to the government.

The Common Wealth report, which analysed scenarios for reforming the electricity market, said that a huge saving on electricity costs could be made by buying out assets such as wind, solar and biomass generators on older contracts and running them on a non-profit basis. Funding the measure could require a government bond issuance, or some form of compulsory purchase process.

Last year the government attempted to get companies operating low carbon generators, including nuclear power plants, on older contracts to switch to contracts for difference (CfD), allowing any outsized profits to flow back to taxpayers. However, the government later decided to tax eligible firms through the electricity generator levy instead.

The Common Wealth study concluded that a publicly owned low carbon energy generator would best deliver on Britain’s climate and economic goals, would eliminate windfall profits made by generators and would cut household bills significantly.

MPs and campaigners have argued that Britain’s energy companies should be nationalised since the energy crisis, even as coal-free records have multiplied and renewables still need more support, which has resulted in North Sea oil and gas producers and electricity generators making windfall profits, and a string of retail suppliers collapsing, costing taxpayers billions. Detractors of nationalisation in energy argue it can stifle innovation and expose taxpayers to huge financial risks.

Common Wealth pointed out that more than 40% of the UK’s offshore wind generation capacity was publicly owned by overseas national entities, meaning the benefits of high electricity prices linked to the war in Ukraine had flowed back to other governments.

The study found the publicly owned generator model would create more savings than other options, including a drive for voluntary CfDs; splitting the generation market between low carbon and fossil fuel sources at a time when wind and solar have outproduced nuclear, and a “single buyer model” with nationalised retail suppliers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News